We won't worry about the corrupt or vindictive motives of those who give away the information, such as groups controlled by Russian intelligence. And if the innocent get hurt in the process -- intelligence sources get killed, for example -- well, that's just collateral damage.
96
WikiLeaks acts to publish material that is given to them. That material just happened to be all concerning the DNC, which is unfortunate given that this undoubtedly lead to Trump being elected President. But would you rather have WikiLeaks not publish the content that they had received concerning the DNC until after the election or ever? I believe the public has the right to know who we are electing to our public offices. You could argue that hacking Trump would not have as much benefit as he vocalizes every thought he has. You may have more evidence of Trump contradicting himself, but he would lie about it, as he did during the campaign, and his voters would believe him.
The fact is that there is a significant amount of activity that goes on in this country that is that blind to most of the population. NYT would not have been able to publish the content that was released in the DNC leaks/Iraq Wars/PRISM without some sort of censorship, primarily self-censorship, that is brought on by fear of retaliation against the author. We need an avenue to publish these documents so that the public is better informed. We won't like everything we see, but the problems need to be brought to light.
It seems that the primary reason that people don't like WikiLeaks is because they don't like the outcome and not because of what WikiLeaks stands for. If the tables had been turned, the anger that fellow commenters have would not be as severe or there at all.
The fact is that there is a significant amount of activity that goes on in this country that is that blind to most of the population. NYT would not have been able to publish the content that was released in the DNC leaks/Iraq Wars/PRISM without some sort of censorship, primarily self-censorship, that is brought on by fear of retaliation against the author. We need an avenue to publish these documents so that the public is better informed. We won't like everything we see, but the problems need to be brought to light.
It seems that the primary reason that people don't like WikiLeaks is because they don't like the outcome and not because of what WikiLeaks stands for. If the tables had been turned, the anger that fellow commenters have would not be as severe or there at all.
34
WikiLeaks is a self-aggrandizing group that revels in its power to violate the rights of privacy of people in every country. It is a secret organization that is accountable to no one. It's alleged goal of the "the democratization of information" is a mission statement it gave itself without concern for the damage its illegal publications might cause. It is easy to champion WikiLeaks, or at least claim that it does "some good," until your personal information is shared with the world without your permission. Colin Powell's e-mails to Condoleezza Rice were private communications in which they shared their viewpoints meant only for each other. For those of you who support him, think about how you'll feel when he reveals your intimate conversations. Julian Assange has been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden. These actions contradict the notion that he is on a "saintly mission" to expose the secrets of nations and individuals. Ultimately, he is a common criminal with a large ego and the delusion that he is helping humanity.
95
It is baffling that this utter nonesense would appear in the Opinion section. We all know that the leaks against Clinton had nothing do with a dispassionate release of information to 'enforce transparency'. This 'transparency' was comprised of hacks specifically directed against the DNC and Hillary Clinton. The RNC and Donald Trump were left untouched. WikiLeaks completely jumped to the tune of the 'ideas' of the holed up, accused rapist coward, Julian Assange.
What is more important is that WikiLeaks has revealed in vivid bas relief what cyber war against the U.S. really looks like. There are more moving parts to this - including role played by the media - but essentially, what it boiled down to was simplicity. It was relatively easy for a foreign adversary, Putin and Russia, to take advantage of one man's hatred, that of Assange, against a single other person, Hillarly Clinton, resulting in profoundly affecting the future of the U.S.
In other words, the experiment was successful. It represents a paradigm shift, a sea change in the manner that information is manipulated and cyber war is conducted.
What is more important is that WikiLeaks has revealed in vivid bas relief what cyber war against the U.S. really looks like. There are more moving parts to this - including role played by the media - but essentially, what it boiled down to was simplicity. It was relatively easy for a foreign adversary, Putin and Russia, to take advantage of one man's hatred, that of Assange, against a single other person, Hillarly Clinton, resulting in profoundly affecting the future of the U.S.
In other words, the experiment was successful. It represents a paradigm shift, a sea change in the manner that information is manipulated and cyber war is conducted.
84
An utterly incredible piece: Wikileaks only spent months in a deliberate and ultimately successful campaign to tarnish and bring down one candidate. You must be very proud of yourselves for your large part in changing history and making Donald Trump President.
95
It would be more accurate to say the world needs a group like Wikileaks to exist, but I think their actions this year mean it shouldn't be Wikileaks.
67
Either WIKI leaks is a pawn of the factions sending them information or they are deciding what information to release. How else to explain the one sided dump of private emails during this election?
55
"Good journalism does indeed seek out transparency, and looks for the web of connections that surround government, business, international politics."
You may reconsider this statement if you use the MSM as a standard, as most of those outlets were clearly transparent in the open support of one party in the recent election process.
You may reconsider this statement if you use the MSM as a standard, as most of those outlets were clearly transparent in the open support of one party in the recent election process.
13
Can we be clear? The material Wikileaks publishes is stolen. Sanctimonious whining about transparency and the alleged persecution of Julian Assange does not make it right or legal to publish such materials. Furthermore, during this election the material was mostly trivial and served no purpose other than to embarrass the Clinton campaign. The effect was to distract the legitimate press from covering the real issues. How is this in any way a valuable service to the cause of accountability in a good government?
64
After this presidential election I see Wikileaks as a tool of Putin. Because I believe Putin to be a sociopathic criminal I can't trust anything from Wikileaks. Snowden may have started out with good intentions but his Putin employee now. Assange and his Russian hackers are not to be trusted. They're tainted now.
58
At one point during the election, exactly one-half of the stories on Wikileaks were about Hillary's emails. There was also another story offering a $20,000 bounty for damaging information about Jeremy Corbyn, the liberal leader of the Labor party in the UK. There was not a single damaging story about conservative leaders and no offer of money for damaging stories about anyone else.
Any suggestion that Wikileaks is not a conservative partisan organization is simply not supported by the facts. Whatever Wikileaks may have once been, it is now just another mouthpiece for oligarchs and the conservative elite.
Any suggestion that Wikileaks is not a conservative partisan organization is simply not supported by the facts. Whatever Wikileaks may have once been, it is now just another mouthpiece for oligarchs and the conservative elite.
88
I think that a lot of us will wonder (or maybe not) what Putin hopes to gain from WikiLeaks future releases.
Assange gets credit for building WikiLeaks and now the blame for forever tarring it as just another propaganda arm of whatever the KGB calls itself now.
Assange gets credit for building WikiLeaks and now the blame for forever tarring it as just another propaganda arm of whatever the KGB calls itself now.
28
Well, Wikileaks-
You have certainly done NOTHING to keep Trump, Bannon, Giuliani, Flynn, Kushner, Pence, Putin. Assad, or any OTHER 'powerful' leader' 'honest'. Where were your 'ethical' leakers during the smear campaign done on Hillary--the only rational adult option for America?
For shame. No, the world doesn't need your particular kind of bias.
You have certainly done NOTHING to keep Trump, Bannon, Giuliani, Flynn, Kushner, Pence, Putin. Assad, or any OTHER 'powerful' leader' 'honest'. Where were your 'ethical' leakers during the smear campaign done on Hillary--the only rational adult option for America?
For shame. No, the world doesn't need your particular kind of bias.
79
I read the first paragraph, noted who the writer is associated with, and stopped reading. I used to be an admirer, but Julian Assange has lost all credibility with me regarding any professed benevolence for a peaceful society. I don't think I am the only person here who thinks the same. He, and you, have lost a big audience.
49
The staunch denial of Wikileaks by Hillary supporters is stunning. The fact that some of them actually believe that Wikileaks is a propaganda arm of Putin is ridiculous. That's just absurd. But hey, liberal newspapers like the NYT are responsible for this kind of sheep mentality.
23
There is no justification for hacking private documents. Transparency does not require opening a private citizen's (Podesta) email to the public, even if they are working on a campaign. With that reasoning, shouldn't all our emails be readily available? Shouldn't we be able to peruse our spouse's email for evidence of affairs, or neighbor's for elicit activity? How different is this? Don't know why the Times gave voice to this criminal-supporter.
37
I, too, once agreed that transparency sounded like a good concept in theory. Chase away the shadows and ghosts from government: it sounds so great on paper.
The reality of transparency has been a huge disappointment and I think that Wikileaks takes a fair share of the blame. Unfortunately, a closer look at "transparency" reveals a flawed argument. Simply dumping massive quantities of documents on 'the public' is to re-obscure through volume. Simply put, the only people who have time to sift through the massive piles of data (e.g. emails) will be those who are motivated to do so for other reasons. Usually, this means that the organizations who have a political axe to grind (or story to increase clicks on) will mine these piles of data for the most salacious tidbits, even if it requires them to do a lot of creative interpretation. Whatever few unbiased journalists who might try to sift through the pile are hugely incentivized to report something. The Email-gate is the perfect example of this: a huge nothingburger that dominated headlines endlessly when much bigger issues (and much bigger scandals) were right there in the open.
Add to this the fact that additional transparency in government has led to crippling gridlock. Again, the ideal of transparency is contradicted by the reality.
Even without accounting for the obvious bias in what Wikileaks released over the election cycle, I personally think you are praying to a False God in all of your efforts.
The reality of transparency has been a huge disappointment and I think that Wikileaks takes a fair share of the blame. Unfortunately, a closer look at "transparency" reveals a flawed argument. Simply dumping massive quantities of documents on 'the public' is to re-obscure through volume. Simply put, the only people who have time to sift through the massive piles of data (e.g. emails) will be those who are motivated to do so for other reasons. Usually, this means that the organizations who have a political axe to grind (or story to increase clicks on) will mine these piles of data for the most salacious tidbits, even if it requires them to do a lot of creative interpretation. Whatever few unbiased journalists who might try to sift through the pile are hugely incentivized to report something. The Email-gate is the perfect example of this: a huge nothingburger that dominated headlines endlessly when much bigger issues (and much bigger scandals) were right there in the open.
Add to this the fact that additional transparency in government has led to crippling gridlock. Again, the ideal of transparency is contradicted by the reality.
Even without accounting for the obvious bias in what Wikileaks released over the election cycle, I personally think you are praying to a False God in all of your efforts.
43
Ms Harrison, you defend your organization against the wrong charge. It is not that you should have withheld newsworthy information. You failed to recognize the actual story, which was not that there was information about Clinton which allowed Julian Assange to damage her.
The story was in the provenance, that the Russian government had intervened in the American electoral process.
The petty internal interaction, the tabloid tidbits both within the DNC and within Assange's inflated ego,are as nothing compared to Russia's daylight espionage.
You not only missed that story, you aided in its operation.
Your organization is-your are- a tool. A dupe.
Character is necessary before integrity can exist; your organization has yet to achieve that.
The story was in the provenance, that the Russian government had intervened in the American electoral process.
The petty internal interaction, the tabloid tidbits both within the DNC and within Assange's inflated ego,are as nothing compared to Russia's daylight espionage.
You not only missed that story, you aided in its operation.
Your organization is-your are- a tool. A dupe.
Character is necessary before integrity can exist; your organization has yet to achieve that.
55
You claim impartiality because you publish documents damaging to both Republicans and Democrats, but excuse me if this rings hollow from a foreign party outside the US. The common thread of your leaks are that they are damaging to the US, and specifically to whichever party is most of a threat to aggressors and diplomatic adversaries abroad. So excuse me if I don't take your pleas of "impartiality" seriously when you turn a blind eye toward Russia, whose corruption and human rights abuses make the United States' own crimes look petty by comparison.
38
Wikileaks seems to like to destroy Democrats, but never laid a glove on the GOP. Not one GOP email release during the entire 2 year anti-Clinton campaign?? In fact, they seem to have teamed up with Russia.
39
That discussion reminds me the discussion about judges on the Supreme Court when each side claims that other side picks the judges exclusively based on their political views, while in reality both sides are doing exactly that. Does it mean that we should discard the Supreme Court? Somebody is not satisfied by WikiLeaks policies? Well, what's a problem? Create your own Wikileaks with your policies, but don't try to close this one just because you think it is biased. Fox News may be biased, but nobody calls to shut it down. To fight its bias, there are other news, that are also biased but in different directions. Bias is in the eye of the beholder. In order to achieve complete transparency (if, of course, we think it is good for society) we should have more organizations as WikiLeaks, not less. And really, to blame Clinton's defeat on WikiLeaks is like to kill the messenger.
12
Wikileaks needs to be destroyed and its arrogance exposed.
38
No one can hide from what they say in the cyber age. That is probably a good thing.
9
We do not need Russian propaganda!!
Freedom of information, sure. However, Wikileaks is being run by the Russians.
Freedom of information, sure. However, Wikileaks is being run by the Russians.
30
I used to think that WikiLeaks was providing a public service along the lines of "sunshine is the best disinfectant." But by releasing private Clinton Campaign emails leading up to the election, it is has shown itself to be a mere tool of opposition research in service of the campaign it favored for personal reasons . Richard Nixon maintained a secret staff of burglars willing to break into the Democratic National Committee to steal party secrets and we impeached him. Corruption and paranoia about political enemies led to an attempt to subvert the democratic process.
Why should democrats champion the same type of conduct, where the tools are now computer hacking, and International espionage instead of the old fashioned criminal break in. WikiLeaks should fight fairly to make its case to the world, not join the "lock her up" bandwagon because they feel that they've been unfairly imprisoned for speaking out.
Why should democrats champion the same type of conduct, where the tools are now computer hacking, and International espionage instead of the old fashioned criminal break in. WikiLeaks should fight fairly to make its case to the world, not join the "lock her up" bandwagon because they feel that they've been unfairly imprisoned for speaking out.
26
Hillary Clinton joked(?) that Julian Assange should be droned. She said Edward Snowden should come out of exile to face the music. Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for four years out of fear that he would be criminally extradited to the US to suffer a fate similar to the great Chelsea Manning who is being tortured in a military prison. In some real sense Obama and Clinton are now reaping what they sowed. But for Sarah Harrison to claim that the systemic well-timed release of these emails, without a comparable release of emails damaging to Trump, is anything but payback (regardless of the consequences to millions of people) feels dishonest in the extreme. Typical pr spin that governments, corporations and political movements just do without ever giving it a second thought. For me at least my strong defense of WikiLeaks is now more out of principal than out of respect.
13
Idealistic socialists continued to believe in the Soviet Union, then in Communist China long after those systems had proved themselves to be enemies of the people. Julian Assange, an autocratic narcissist with many of the same flaws that distinguish our President Elect, has shown himself now to be a tool of fascist Russia. The democratic idealists who continue to delude themselves about what WikiLeaks has become will eventually wake up. Assange and WikiLeaks have just cast the USA into the cold of a four or eight-year night. WikiLeaks is not on my side.
22
"The world is connected by largely unaccountable networks of power that span industries and countries, political parties, corporations and institutions; WikiLeaks shines a light on these"
But who shines a light on Wikileaks?
But who shines a light on Wikileaks?
29
Journalists at least try to tell both sides of a story. WikiLeaks make no attempt to do so. They accept "submissions" from secret sources with hidden agendas. This leads to a very one-sided story with inherent bias based on the hidden motives of their sources. If the information was obtained in illegal ways, it makes their actions even more questionable. It's noteworthy that a court of law will not accept evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure. In my opinion, Wikileaks has now moved from an organization of which I had no strong opinion to one which I view very very skeptically. They have clearly illustrated why "real journalism", while not perfect, is the far better model for a democratic society.
20
If WikiLeaks is this great unbiased source - where are the RNC e-mails? Where are Putin's e-mails for the world to see - maybe Putin has a swell stroganoff recipe for us! Make no doubt WikiLeaks has out served its purpose - we have Twitter for misinformation.
25
Your "leaks" are biased in that they focused only on Clinton. You did nothing to expose Trump. Why didn't you publish his tax returns? Why didn't you hack into his campaign or business email accounts? He is hardly without any faults. He has been involved in in 3,500 legal actions during the past 30 years. The sexual assault allegations alone should warrant your investigation. But instead you focused entirely on Clinton. You are a foreign organization that meddled in a US presidential elections and helped swayed the vote with your partisan reporting.
26
No matter what you say, it looked like you had vendetta with Mrs. Clinton.
20
Leak Trump's Russia connections and his tax returns! Until then all your highbrow pronouncements of transparency and newsworthy information dissemination is just empty chatter and propaganda. For the last few months the main work and mission of WikiLeaks was to act as a bullhorn for Russian hackers, who had the explicit goal to get their puppet Trump elected. There is absolutely no journalistic craft, no courage, not even old-fashioned legwork involved in this, and your op-ed piece does not change this one bit.
24
"I can understand the frustration, however misplaced, from Clinton supporters."
Misplaced? I don't think so. And frustration does NOT describe my seething ANGER at Julian Assange. His timing in releasing thousands of Clinton campaign emails surely was a factor in America electing an extremely dangerous, misogynistic, racist, narcissistic xenophobe and bully as our next president. Assange commented on one of the last batches that it "would provide enough evidence" for Hillary to be arrested. The timing of the releases was surely NOT neutral as Harrison claims in this article.
Assange is an example of the "power corrupts" principle. He took that power and used it strategically to allow a completely unqualified and unhinged man to become the new leader of the free world.
What a jerk!
Misplaced? I don't think so. And frustration does NOT describe my seething ANGER at Julian Assange. His timing in releasing thousands of Clinton campaign emails surely was a factor in America electing an extremely dangerous, misogynistic, racist, narcissistic xenophobe and bully as our next president. Assange commented on one of the last batches that it "would provide enough evidence" for Hillary to be arrested. The timing of the releases was surely NOT neutral as Harrison claims in this article.
Assange is an example of the "power corrupts" principle. He took that power and used it strategically to allow a completely unqualified and unhinged man to become the new leader of the free world.
What a jerk!
37
Transparency and the democratization of information? On the side of truth?
That's a load of malarky. Assange has warped whatever ideologies may have guided WikiLeaks in the beginning into a personal vendetta machine. Just like his buddy Trump, Assange is alone in assuming his great importance to the world. Honesty is not a concept that inspires or motivates WikiLeaks. Nice try but we the people are buying it.
That's a load of malarky. Assange has warped whatever ideologies may have guided WikiLeaks in the beginning into a personal vendetta machine. Just like his buddy Trump, Assange is alone in assuming his great importance to the world. Honesty is not a concept that inspires or motivates WikiLeaks. Nice try but we the people are buying it.
19
Sarah, transparency is great, but not at the price of privacy. Perhaps that's something difficult for you to digest. But you and your Mr. Assange are criminals, as is anyone who works for or is associated with WikiLeaks.
Who are you to choose what to publish and what to censor, especially for stolen property? Yes, you are unscrupulous thieves. And vindictive ones, too. Don't hide behind your fake principles of transparency. Assange has a particular grudge against Hillary, so he decided to derail her candidacy as best as he could. But he failed, while the FBI succeeded.
WikiLeaks is the unencumbered purveyor of internet crimes. You will be stopped, and prosecuted, and deservedly so. I hope you enjoy your time in prison.
Who are you to choose what to publish and what to censor, especially for stolen property? Yes, you are unscrupulous thieves. And vindictive ones, too. Don't hide behind your fake principles of transparency. Assange has a particular grudge against Hillary, so he decided to derail her candidacy as best as he could. But he failed, while the FBI succeeded.
WikiLeaks is the unencumbered purveyor of internet crimes. You will be stopped, and prosecuted, and deservedly so. I hope you enjoy your time in prison.
22
WikiLeaks is not a solution, it is a problem. Basically, it's every self-righteous boob who can anoint him-, her-, or itself a whistle-blower, causing chaos for its own sake.
'We are not going to go away.' I thought after last week I couldn't hear any words that would depress me more ...
'We are not going to go away.' I thought after last week I couldn't hear any words that would depress me more ...
16
My problem with wikileaks is that while they say they try to verify the information presented they offer no explanation as to the verification process.
Did they verify that the Clinton campaign documents were unaltered. Considering the fact that the implied source of the Clinton campaign documents were Russian government supported hackers, did they verify that the documents were unaltered and honestly expose the source of these documents considering that a foreign government was trying to influence a U.S. election to its benefit.
Ms. Harrison is trying to have it all - the thrill of exposing something without actually doing the due diligence that outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post do and actually verify, verify, verify.
That being said, I also believe that the behavior of wikileaks during the election campaign was reprehesible. Despite their protestations to the contrary, their actions weren't noble at all. They were done with absolute malice towards Mrs. Clinton as part of Julian Assange's vendetta against the Obama administration.
then there is the question as to whether any funding was received by wikileaks from a) the Russian government or b) supporters of Donald Trump. I know that wikileaks provides a list of supporters on its website, but is that list exhaustive? Who are the hidden donors to the organization while insisting that their donations remain anonymous? Does wikileaks reject donations from people or organizations with an agenda?
Did they verify that the Clinton campaign documents were unaltered. Considering the fact that the implied source of the Clinton campaign documents were Russian government supported hackers, did they verify that the documents were unaltered and honestly expose the source of these documents considering that a foreign government was trying to influence a U.S. election to its benefit.
Ms. Harrison is trying to have it all - the thrill of exposing something without actually doing the due diligence that outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post do and actually verify, verify, verify.
That being said, I also believe that the behavior of wikileaks during the election campaign was reprehesible. Despite their protestations to the contrary, their actions weren't noble at all. They were done with absolute malice towards Mrs. Clinton as part of Julian Assange's vendetta against the Obama administration.
then there is the question as to whether any funding was received by wikileaks from a) the Russian government or b) supporters of Donald Trump. I know that wikileaks provides a list of supporters on its website, but is that list exhaustive? Who are the hidden donors to the organization while insisting that their donations remain anonymous? Does wikileaks reject donations from people or organizations with an agenda?
21
Underhandedness and deceit are not just common to third world countries but also in the developed world. Wikileaks gives us what the press does not seem to be able to do anymore. Wikileaks has the power to expose anything at anytime it wants. If the information was not exposed, we would be less informed by our traditional news sources. There are countless reasons for the results of the election and it will be tossed around for a long time, but I am sure Wikileaks will continue to peak our interests in the future as the expose a side of how the world really runs behind the scenes.
29
All other concerns about sabotage of Hillary's campaign (and there were many from WikiLeaks) aside we have no proof that these papers released, allegedly without alteration, editing, or other tampering are actually factual, let alone certified copies of the originals. And to top it off only Sec. Clinton's Emails were released. Not Trump's, republicans, donors, to mention just a few.
Assange's hatred is his undoing
Assange's hatred is his undoing
14
How about some leaks of Russian emails, Sarah?
I didn't think so.
I didn't think so.
21
In a world of state secrets, corporate secrets, prosecutions of whistle-blowers, and 30 year prison terms for those who reveal war crimes, there are no perfect messengers. While some find it admirable that Snowden attempted to limit what portions were released, part of the real power if the WikiLeaks approach is exactly that they release everything. The US State Dept survived the Manning release, but Hilary lost in part because of leaks and the insecurity of stored data.
Some argue that when operations and real names are released that innocent people can be hurt or killed. The helicopter video Manning released shows innocent people being hurt and killed by the secret-keepers. When corporations defraud consumers innocent people get hurt. The WikiLeaks approach is anything but harmless, but it does leave the perps momentarily naked in the sun. That is our best defense against their weaponizing of their many secrecies.
Some argue that when operations and real names are released that innocent people can be hurt or killed. The helicopter video Manning released shows innocent people being hurt and killed by the secret-keepers. When corporations defraud consumers innocent people get hurt. The WikiLeaks approach is anything but harmless, but it does leave the perps momentarily naked in the sun. That is our best defense against their weaponizing of their many secrecies.
14
WikiLeaks has managed to destroy its credibility as an impartial revealer of hidden information. Julian Assange did this himself when he publicly expressed his enmity for Hillary Clinton.
In her opinion piece, Sarah Harrison conveniently ignores the fact that WikiLeaks did not merely release the hacked DNC information; rather, they weaponized the information by releasing it in a carefully orchestrated way, parsing the emails out in small batches during the final phase of our election.
Ms. Harrison claims to not know or care where their information comes from. This is a dubious claim, but even if it were true, this willful ignorance allows them to become the tool of malevolent actors--in this case, Vladimir Putin.
Finally, there is the issue of privacy. Everyone has a right to expect that private thoughts, whether they belong to John Podesta or John Doe, will remain private. If Sara Harrison disagrees, perhaps she would like to release her own private emails and those of the WikiLeaks staff.
In her opinion piece, Sarah Harrison conveniently ignores the fact that WikiLeaks did not merely release the hacked DNC information; rather, they weaponized the information by releasing it in a carefully orchestrated way, parsing the emails out in small batches during the final phase of our election.
Ms. Harrison claims to not know or care where their information comes from. This is a dubious claim, but even if it were true, this willful ignorance allows them to become the tool of malevolent actors--in this case, Vladimir Putin.
Finally, there is the issue of privacy. Everyone has a right to expect that private thoughts, whether they belong to John Podesta or John Doe, will remain private. If Sara Harrison disagrees, perhaps she would like to release her own private emails and those of the WikiLeaks staff.
28
You are all bunch of spies and ought to be treated as such.
14
We have a nation about to led by a Demagogue so I guess Wikileaks being led by rapist and in cahoots with Putin is OK? The American people deserve to get everything that's coming to them, good and hard.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
9
I have a huge problem with Sarah Harrison's logic. If she really wants "true transparency" then Wikileaks should have released material from both parties and candidates , but the only the only material that was exposed was Clinton and the DNC which shows biased and an attempt at influencing the election. Also, the idea of "collecting what ever they receive" is not true thorough investigative reporting, Rather it's the equivalent of whispering schoolyard secrets in a power play. The consequences are not enlightenment or knowledge, but chaos, distrust and instability. But maybe that was their intent all along.
23
As long as Wikileaks puts out information on BOTH sides. I would like to see the Trump e-mails over the last 15 months. When Wikileaks takes sides, it then becomes an untrustworthy rogue, much like Faux News that masquerades as a "balanced" news organization.
19
A majority of the world does not share the good works opinion. Intrusion into the private lives of any one is unacceptable. Mr. Assange is not an American and his intrusion is not welcome into the welfare of Americans. We can take care of ourselves - do please butt out.
8
No, the world does not need wikileaks and was arguably better off without it.
Does Sarah Harrison not realize that Assange hates Hillary? It's well documented. It was so important to Assange and his puppet master, Putin, to defeat Hillary that Assange was willing to publish people's Social Security and Credit Card numbers during his DNC data dump to show he wasn't kidding around. And because there were no releases of RNC data, because Wikileaks' bosses at the Kremlin didn't provide any, Trump is President and the whole world will likely be much worse off for it.
Wikileaks needs to go away, and the sooner, the better.
Does Sarah Harrison not realize that Assange hates Hillary? It's well documented. It was so important to Assange and his puppet master, Putin, to defeat Hillary that Assange was willing to publish people's Social Security and Credit Card numbers during his DNC data dump to show he wasn't kidding around. And because there were no releases of RNC data, because Wikileaks' bosses at the Kremlin didn't provide any, Trump is President and the whole world will likely be much worse off for it.
Wikileaks needs to go away, and the sooner, the better.
24
Hey Sarah,
I really would love to believe the Wikileaks didn't source material from Russian hackers and that it wasn't deliberately targeting Hilary Clinton's campaign. Of course as you are well aware the public shouldn't trust any institution (including wikileak) that is not 100% transparent. So lets see Wikileaks turn over all their staff's email from the last year just to be sure they weren't actually abusing the public's trust. Can you practice what yo preach or would that likely embarrass you and the other cult of assange acolytes?
I really would love to believe the Wikileaks didn't source material from Russian hackers and that it wasn't deliberately targeting Hilary Clinton's campaign. Of course as you are well aware the public shouldn't trust any institution (including wikileak) that is not 100% transparent. So lets see Wikileaks turn over all their staff's email from the last year just to be sure they weren't actually abusing the public's trust. Can you practice what yo preach or would that likely embarrass you and the other cult of assange acolytes?
29
I don't believe your protestations of "without fear or favor". The process of curation reveals your biases, and you have endangered individuals over the course of your history. Julian Assange made it clear that his bias was against Hillary Clinton. You yourselves are a lot less than transparent, and no one elected you to be the watchdog of the world. How about some RNC leaks?
Consider the source of your recent material. Russia, that beacon of freedom and transparency.
Consider the source of your recent material. Russia, that beacon of freedom and transparency.
18
Ms. Harrison wants to present Wikileaks as an unwitting tool of authoritarians and ethno-nationalists, rather than a knowing participant. But it seems to me that she doesn't give herself or her organization enough credit. No one is that dumb.
5
Wikileaks is almost always described in the NYT as "the anti-secrecy organization, Wikileaks." It is not. It is the anti-American secrecy organization, Wikileaks. I don't recall hearing about exposes of Russian or Chinese "secrets" on Wikileaks. How about printing Julian Assange's emails? He's against secrecy, isn't he? How about your own internal communications? Don't we have some interest in knowing more about those who self-style themselves as guardians of the truth? How do you know that you aren't just being "played" by whoever provides you with source material? You are frauds.
13
It may well be that all information is distributed, but it was the timing that was truly suspicious Did Wikileaks just get the information they sent out. I don't believe so. Was there a Constant stream of new information? That strains credulity too. So it seems Wikileaks had some other agenda. I'm totally for full disclosure, but the way it was handled reeks of vendetta.
6
Assange himself has stated that he has an agenda to accomplish, and it's not founded on truth, objectivity, or the promotion of democracy. He -- and by extension you -- are using leaks for personal vengeance and to undermine the stability and success of any person, organization, or nation you see as an enemy -- hence the glut of emails about Clinton and zero emails related to Trump.
You should be ashamed to work for such an organization, let alone write a piece trying to justify your own lies and corruption.
You should be ashamed to work for such an organization, let alone write a piece trying to justify your own lies and corruption.
11
This reads like a corporate mission statement, full of supposedly high minded guiding principles and wholly avoidant of the realities of actual corporate practice. Taking sides against one candidate in a democratic election because of the personal animus of the dear leader while doing nothing to highlight the multiple problematic areas of the opposing candidate whose only virtue was not to have offended dear leader makes wikileaks no different than any other totalitarian authoritarian operation.
148
Two thoughts about ethics, good intentions and Wikileaks.
Assange is in hiding to avoid being charged with a crime. The entire world is watching. Go to trial and prove your innocence. I'm sure you can find a good lawyer.
Secondly, Chelsea Manning is in prison for giving information to WikiLeaks. She has tried to commit suicide several times. I do hope that WikiLeaks is trying to support her behind the scenes. Assange is being protected while Manning is actually serving a serous sentence for her crime. Without Manning, Assange would be nothing.
Assange is in hiding to avoid being charged with a crime. The entire world is watching. Go to trial and prove your innocence. I'm sure you can find a good lawyer.
Secondly, Chelsea Manning is in prison for giving information to WikiLeaks. She has tried to commit suicide several times. I do hope that WikiLeaks is trying to support her behind the scenes. Assange is being protected while Manning is actually serving a serous sentence for her crime. Without Manning, Assange would be nothing.
7
I guess Trump/Putin will pardon Julian Assange?
6
Wikileaks has lost all respect after its abominable actions in the current US Presidential election. It is well known that Mr Assange had it in for Hillary. To distort his aims with some phony claim that the people have a right to know is to tell us all we're all stupid. If Mr. Assange had worked hard to bring to light Republican Party memos as well as Democratic ones, then he would have been seen as trying to enlighten the voting public. That was not the case. He proved to be no better than the politicians he mocks. Just another self centered egotistic white guy lashing out at his detractors. Wikileaks has proved to be no different from any other political operation. It has been strongly diminished in my eyes.
17
Your well-timed dribble of emails during the election cycle was designed to harm one party. Either your shop designed this timing, or willingly allowed itself to be the tool of your source. You have a cause that can have real value, but in becoming this partisan hatchet you have damaged the cause you profess to believe in. Most of the sane world today no longer cares for self righteous niche groups who think they know best for others and are willing to do harm to further their aims. I'm sad you're pulling the cause of transparency into this swamp.
17
Calling yourselves a "news organization" is stretching that definition to the point of farce. You're a group of vigilantes determined to afflict those in power in democratic countries who are willing to be used as pawns by totalitarian regimes they're hypocritically afraid to confront. And your leader is a rapist determined to evade justice. And yes, you did allow youselves to be used to influence the election in Trumps favor. Your attempts to refuse responsibility for your actions are very much in line with your leader. All in all, not a group to be belived or trusted. They operate on a very obvious "hidden" agenda.
17
wikileaks is great, invaluable. julian assange? not so much. remove him from wiki, he's become damaged goods using his power for personal vendettas, and wiki will truly shine.
2
I'm waiting breathlessly for WikiLeaks to publish a list of investments and holdings by the Russian kleptocracy.
15
The widespread narrative that Putin helped Trump get elected through Wikileaks conveniently allows Clinton's supporters to avoid seeing the real reasons why she lost, and the failure of the Democratic party in general.
Blaming misogyny for Trump's victory fulfills the same function, by the way.
Given a chance, any decent, genuinely progressive candidate, man or woman, would have made mincemeat of Donald Trump.
Blaming misogyny for Trump's victory fulfills the same function, by the way.
Given a chance, any decent, genuinely progressive candidate, man or woman, would have made mincemeat of Donald Trump.
5
Assange has undermined his own credibility by 'playing god' to our election. Out of vindictive, personal motives he sold our democracy down the drain.
I used to have respect for him. NO MORE.
I used to have respect for him. NO MORE.
10
Why don't we just tear down all of the walls of privacy and ditch all standards of ethical and lawful behavior? Let's just start breaking into offices and homes to steal evidence for the 'cause of truth'. Let's plant eavesdropping devices and tiny cameras everywhere so we know what's really going on. Let's continue to set precedents that allow the gradual advance of totalitarian power until it is one entity that controls us all, because that entity knows all. Hacking is electronic burglary. Dispersing hacked information is fencing stolen goods. There's an old saying that a liberal is a conservative whose been arrested. We'll see how you react when you get hacked.
13
I could not agree more with Ms. Harrison. We need information on our secretive government more today than ever before.
3
If Ms. Harrison truly meant what she writes here, we would have access to troves of Trump/Bannon/Conway information. The fact that we don't, proves her bias, and her status as Putin's puppet.
Wikileaks got what they wanted: Clinton is not president. Now what? The disingenuous nature of their leaks is gobsmacking.
Wikileaks got what they wanted: Clinton is not president. Now what? The disingenuous nature of their leaks is gobsmacking.
9
A cowardly organisation run by a coward! A man who hides in an embassy in an effort to avoid the truth coming out about his own selfish urges and misogyny. It's easy to see why they sided with Trump. And please stop calling yourself an editor, all you do is dump content from Putin's team into an online archive; that's not editing it's pointing and clicking.
13
Do we really need to hear from Assange's girlfriend after all his interference in our election? He spread out his publishing of Clinton and Podesta emails to cause maximum damage - why didn't he just dump the whole shebang when received? Assange stated Trump couldn't possibly be worse than Clinton and that he was convinced Clinton was out to kill him. Yeah, right, because Julian Assange is, like Trump, a narcissist, and it's all about him. Now we're stuck with Trump. There are other whistle-blowing sites who edit and verify and don't rely on the cult of personality of its founder. I suggest future whistle-blowers use them and leave Assange to his paranoid fantasies of how important he is.
11
Assange holds a grudge against the Clintons. He inflicted damage. He got his satisfaction. Now we have to listen to mindless drivel justifying it?
10
Most of the posts I have looked at reflect "readers" who have bought the "official" line about Wikileaks. They expose only what they are given, with some editing, which all too often is a far cry from what we a being told.
Chelsea Manning is in jail now for exposing "national secrets" when what she exposed was a blatantly irresponsible military action against German journalists and an armed (authorized by us) mosque guard. Don't you think we have a right to know what our military is doing, or are you such milktoast as to go along with anything you are told, right or wrong?
Chelsea Manning is in jail now for exposing "national secrets" when what she exposed was a blatantly irresponsible military action against German journalists and an armed (authorized by us) mosque guard. Don't you think we have a right to know what our military is doing, or are you such milktoast as to go along with anything you are told, right or wrong?
2
Nice try. No we don't need WikiLeaks.
5
If WikiLeaks is so committed to transparency let's see their internal emails.
7
Would you please in the name of transparency release ALL of Assanges, yours, and every employees and friends emails to Wikileak. I would love to see your emails.
9
Sorry, but unless WL has thousands of employees, there is no way they can truely vet an average of 3,000 pieces of information a day. I just do not buy it. Unless the bar is pretty low for what they consider to be vetting. How narrow minded to say that she understands Clinton supporter's "frustration." Sweetheart, it ain't frustration, it's outrage! Nothing WL has come up with disqualifies Clinton to the level of foisting a totally unfit, unbalanced, lying, misogynist - no sex offender - president such as Trump onto the American people! It is not surprising though. Assange, their founder, has been in hiding for allegations of sexual assault. Just because he did something good by disclosing SOME valuable & relevant information does NOT make him innocent of a crime.
In fact, I see what he has done as pretty par for the course for someone who commits crimes like sexual assault. Perhaps that is why they never came up with anything on Trump.
WL interfered in an American election, using stolen questionable information (don't let them tell you otherwise) hacked by the Russians resulting in Trump winning the election and thrusting fear into the hearts of every group he targeted with his hate.
Your cause may once have been noble. But, no longer after your exalted leader announced his personal campaign against Hillary.
In fact, I see what he has done as pretty par for the course for someone who commits crimes like sexual assault. Perhaps that is why they never came up with anything on Trump.
WL interfered in an American election, using stolen questionable information (don't let them tell you otherwise) hacked by the Russians resulting in Trump winning the election and thrusting fear into the hearts of every group he targeted with his hate.
Your cause may once have been noble. But, no longer after your exalted leader announced his personal campaign against Hillary.
6
We the people have never needed transparency as much as now, in the face of the increasingly integrated authority of governments. And the response of the U.S. government demonstrates, negatively, the invaluable merits of Wikileaks' mission.
My thanks to you, to Julian Assange and all your collaborators, as well as to Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers, past and future.
My thanks to you, to Julian Assange and all your collaborators, as well as to Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers, past and future.
6
WikiLeaks itself undeniably qualifies as a "largely unaccountable" "powerful faction" and a "secretive institution." Surely your very strongly held principles compel you to release absolutely all your internal communications. Then and only then can the public evaluate you properly. Isn't that right?
This is only a snide rhetorical question if you let it be. It should be a simple thing to hang out your own dirty laundry, and it really does seem like a necessity given your stated position. If you are unwilling to submit to your own prescription of radical exposure then your philosophical position is bankrupt. And that is indeed how WikiLeaks appears to me, like any other force of evil: a massive barricade of would-be "principle" surrounding a single human ego operating self-defensively. Assange's undiscerning fetish for acts that feel like radical defiance, without room for self-reflection, has turned him into ano more than a convenient tool to be wielded by the same sort of unaccountable powers he wants to believe he is fighting.
If you're reading this, Julian: You are not saving the world. You're just part of the world, like everyone else. Your conviction that your motives are purer than pure is exactly why you are not to be trusted, as you of all people should know. Radical distrust needs to start at home. Unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of your self-blindness.
This is only a snide rhetorical question if you let it be. It should be a simple thing to hang out your own dirty laundry, and it really does seem like a necessity given your stated position. If you are unwilling to submit to your own prescription of radical exposure then your philosophical position is bankrupt. And that is indeed how WikiLeaks appears to me, like any other force of evil: a massive barricade of would-be "principle" surrounding a single human ego operating self-defensively. Assange's undiscerning fetish for acts that feel like radical defiance, without room for self-reflection, has turned him into ano more than a convenient tool to be wielded by the same sort of unaccountable powers he wants to believe he is fighting.
If you're reading this, Julian: You are not saving the world. You're just part of the world, like everyone else. Your conviction that your motives are purer than pure is exactly why you are not to be trusted, as you of all people should know. Radical distrust needs to start at home. Unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of your self-blindness.
176
Three cheers for Wikileaks. Let the powerful, from Trump on down, live in fear. If the Dems didn't want a nominee seriously harmed by Wiki, they should not have nominated a candidate as well-bought and vulnerable to scandal as Hillary.
4
Jason Bourne, where are you now that we need you? Where were you when we needed you most? There is a job for you to do.
Ms. Harrison, spare us the self-justifying malarkey that tries to paint Wikileaks as some sort of a news organization. Wikileaks is nothing but a gang of cybercriminals, starting at the top with Julian Assange - a sleazy criminal who has been hiding out in a third-world country's embassy for years to avoid facing justice.
Ms. Harrison can spew out all the lies that she and her co-conspirators in Wikileaks can make up. It does not change the fact that Wikileaks is a cybercrime gang that belongs in jail: Wikileaks is neither a news organization, nor a group of whistleblowers trying to improve a system. It is a collection of cybercriminals who steal and publicize legitimate government secrets that a citizenry can reasonably expect their government to keep.
In terms of the just completed election, Ms. Harrison's lies try to obfuscate the fact that her organization intentionally stole and released information from the Democrats, including the party organization and Hillary Clinton and her staff, while completely ignoring Republicans. That doesn't sound like an act of a news organization, but a shadowy organization with a hidden agenda.
That this bunch of lies from Sarah Harrison and Wikileaks found a place in the Times is a shame - criminals don't deserve sympathy, and they don't deserve the space in the op/ed pages that gives them a [false] air of legitimacy. As another commenter said, Wikileaks is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for Putin.
Ms. Harrison can spew out all the lies that she and her co-conspirators in Wikileaks can make up. It does not change the fact that Wikileaks is a cybercrime gang that belongs in jail: Wikileaks is neither a news organization, nor a group of whistleblowers trying to improve a system. It is a collection of cybercriminals who steal and publicize legitimate government secrets that a citizenry can reasonably expect their government to keep.
In terms of the just completed election, Ms. Harrison's lies try to obfuscate the fact that her organization intentionally stole and released information from the Democrats, including the party organization and Hillary Clinton and her staff, while completely ignoring Republicans. That doesn't sound like an act of a news organization, but a shadowy organization with a hidden agenda.
That this bunch of lies from Sarah Harrison and Wikileaks found a place in the Times is a shame - criminals don't deserve sympathy, and they don't deserve the space in the op/ed pages that gives them a [false] air of legitimacy. As another commenter said, Wikileaks is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for Putin.
6
WikiLeaks was played like a Russian violin - unfortunately you don't recognize the tune.
4
Oh Really! And where, pray tell, was the truth about the winner in this election? Just enquiring!
5
Oh yeah, Sarah Harrison, explain that part again about how the Russians had no hand in the leaks about the Democrats, but this time in a way that we can believe you or at least so we can stop laughing out loud when you say you're not "pawns of the Russian government". While you're at it, how about an explanation of how come no Wikileaks about Trump or the Republicans appeared?
We are not a stupid people, so stop talking down to us about what happened!
If anything, Mr. Assange has convinced me that he belongs in prison and Wikileaks is just another propaganda machine whose statements are disbelievable and weaponized.
We are not a stupid people, so stop talking down to us about what happened!
If anything, Mr. Assange has convinced me that he belongs in prison and Wikileaks is just another propaganda machine whose statements are disbelievable and weaponized.
7
Wikileaks serves a useful purpose, and thrives only because or whenever those who are supposed to afflict the comfortable, as the saying goes, such as the NYT and CNN are supposed to do, don't do their job.
Wikileaks also serves to balance the table: when the three arguably major media outlets in the US (NYT, WSJ, WaP) make it their mission to take down Trump, almost at any cost, an underdog at that time, and refuse to afflict the comfortable Mrs. Clinton, something has to be done.
Thanks, Wikileaks. Please continue in the service of democracy when our institutions won't.
Wikileaks also serves to balance the table: when the three arguably major media outlets in the US (NYT, WSJ, WaP) make it their mission to take down Trump, almost at any cost, an underdog at that time, and refuse to afflict the comfortable Mrs. Clinton, something has to be done.
Thanks, Wikileaks. Please continue in the service of democracy when our institutions won't.
4
No excuse for the steady flow of DNC documents with pure hands off for the vulgar creepy, corrupt despot you placed into power in the US. We had respect for wikileaks before you did this. Yes, whistleblowers need protection. Your organization is obviously not a neutral purveyor of truth. Shame on you.
Now help us out of the mess you created.
Please sign petition and post on your own FaceBook etc Note that
Lindsey Graham is requesting investigation of DNC server hacks for a good reason!
Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-ma...?
Now help us out of the mess you created.
Please sign petition and post on your own FaceBook etc Note that
Lindsey Graham is requesting investigation of DNC server hacks for a good reason!
Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-ma...?
4
It is surprising (and sad) to see how many Americans would rather not know what chicanery the elites in Washington might be up to.
These misguided millions think that following venal nefarious politicians over the proverbial cliff is synonymous with patriotism.
Ignorance and blind obedience are the foundations of autocracy and religious fundamentalism, not democracy.
These misguided millions think that following venal nefarious politicians over the proverbial cliff is synonymous with patriotism.
Ignorance and blind obedience are the foundations of autocracy and religious fundamentalism, not democracy.
2
Wikileaks is in cahoots with Russian dictator Putin to bring down American democracy. By working closely with Putin to influence the American election, Wikileaks has revealed it hates freedom.
4
Interesting that they published stuff from only one side during the election. WikiLeaks is no friend of the U.S. There is no question that our enemies wanted Trump to win the election. Without the release of his tax returns there is much speculation which banks in which countries is he beholden to. Also, how do we know if emails were doctored?
4
If President Donald Trump doesn't convince you that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange aren't as globally dangerous as a nuclear weapon in the hands of a madman....I guess nothing will.
1
On your website, Wikileaks, you offer rewards in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to "buy" information for specific purposes. Yet this time, you were suffienctly satisfied with influencing the US electon just enough to make the worst chase scenario a reality. And not just for the US, but to the entire planet in every regard: security, environment, international relations, etc. You have lost any credibility this time for which you always had the benefit of the doubt. No more. Your purpose was to inflict damage to one side of the campaign alone and thus alter its result. You have bitten the hand which held any kind of interest in your relevations. Now you are left with the Trumpistas, you made your bed, now sleep in it, with all the consequences.
You should move your headquarters to Moscow....
You should move your headquarters to Moscow....
29
If "the world needs Wikileaks," the implication is that privacy is no longer a right that anyone can expect. Why not let another organization hack into Wikileaks and Julian Assange's private email accounts? Sarah Harrison, let's see all your personal and private emails.
29
"Some have accused us of being pawns of the Russian government, but this misrepresents our principles and basic operations."
And this, Ms. Harrison, is the difference between potential and reality. Potentially, you're a great source of truth; in reality, you're a pawn of foreign governments and were used to influence an election. Thanks for that!
And this, Ms. Harrison, is the difference between potential and reality. Potentially, you're a great source of truth; in reality, you're a pawn of foreign governments and were used to influence an election. Thanks for that!
31
All I have to ask is did you even try to find anything on Donald Trump?
27
"whatever comes into us" is a frightening concept. Wikileaks makes editorial decisions as to which documents get published, sometimes with major ramifications. How are those decisions made? To whom are you answerable? A memo, by itself may be meaningless if it was ignored.
7
Ms. Harrison, if you cannot see the logical fallacy in your arguments, you have already been compromised by blind devotion to a cause. You want to claim some sort of ethical purity, claiming you alone are somehow all that is standing between the "unaccountable networks of power" and the people, but in this election is was your unaccountable power to disseminate stolen goods that got in the way of the people's power to hold a political system accountable. If internal campaign emails are so important and newsworthy, where were the ones describing the inner workings of the opposing party? Where is the documentation about the people behind those levers of power? Perhaps your organization functions like a pawn shop, serving a legitimate and even vital role in the movement of information in society. Yet the question must be asked if you are now just a pawn, with information "pouring in" because, as we have just witnessed, one world actor can use WikiLeaks to bend the will of another. "Shining a light" can indeed reveal hidden things but it can also blind people. Who holds WikiLeaks accountable for the latter?
21
As long as one remembers its information is tainted by one person deciding what information is given out and that information may be true but also one sided.
7
Nice try but no cigar. I used to believe that WikiLeaks had no hidden agenda other than exposing information that the public should know but that appears to be patently false despite Sarah Harrison's protestations. The one-sided manner in which the Clinton email documents were dribbled out to cause maximum damage while disparaging information from the Trump side was kept under wraps was reprehensible. From now on, any time I read a reference to WikiLeaks I will be wondering what bias is behind their action.
21
Because foreign powers deserve a role in our elections and wanted criminals on the run should definitely have a right to ensure that the candidate who will issue them a pardon should be the next president?
7
The clear result of the WikiLeaks Democratic Party hack was to cast an ugly light on a process which is often hidden from public view of how a party congeals around it's most likely electable candidate. The timing could not be coincidence that already agitated Bernie Sanders voters were turned viciously against the party elite hurting possibly dooming Clinton to a candidate that has very close ties with Russian oligarchs and Vladimir Putin himself. It is almost laughable that this can be viewed in anyway but interference in otherwise public debate about policy and who is best prepared to meet the needs of our nation and the world. It's delusional to believe in your righteous way that you were doing service. To not acknowledge that the source of the data that you released and not acknowledge that it clearly was intended to the political impact on one candidate is irresponsible and truly places WikiLeaks in the light of being a tool for evil not truth.
15
The world does not need WikiLeaks! Transparency is important to be sure, we the people have a right to know what is going on in our world that is corrupt and that affect our lives. However, it is clear the Assange used his hacking organization as a weapon to slant the US election and that to me is a crime! His involvement with Russia, a country that is without a doubt an enemy of the US, is egregious. I have no confidence with the elected president and the slanted Congress that will take over in January 2017. There is no "silver lining" with their agenda and 62 million American voters, those who voted Democrat, will be fighting with all our might against the detestable program the Republicans will try to coerce on us.
15
This flimsy propaganda is unworthy of the New York Times, at least without an accompanying piece detailing the intensity of Wikileaks's partisan inclinations over the past two years. Does Wikileaks not believe that obtaining and publishing Donald Trump's tax returns, for instance, would serve the public interest? There is no reference to the president-elect, a man who has yet to give a press conference, who repeatedly declined to specify his plans to fight terrorism ("What happened to the element of surprise," he asked without a trace of irony), and who plans to transfer management of his domestic and international business holdings to his children -- who will also get security clearances and be privy to the inner workings of the White House.
13
The implication of Ms. Harrison's article is that only in the West, especially the US, are things hidden from the public. And therefore Wikileaks rides to the rescue.
Are there no secrets about how Russian policy is made that its citizens would benefit from knowing? Or for that matter Chinese policy or North Korean policy?
Or for that matter, why are there no secrets about what Republicans say to each other in their emails? Or what names they call each other? Or how two-faced (or even three-faced) they can be?
It is the exclusive focus on the Democrats that gives people the feeling that Wikileaks is a stooge of the Russian government.
Are there no secrets about how Russian policy is made that its citizens would benefit from knowing? Or for that matter Chinese policy or North Korean policy?
Or for that matter, why are there no secrets about what Republicans say to each other in their emails? Or what names they call each other? Or how two-faced (or even three-faced) they can be?
It is the exclusive focus on the Democrats that gives people the feeling that Wikileaks is a stooge of the Russian government.
15
WikiLeaks, when not a tool of some specific ideology, is that of the ideology of anarchy and burn, burn burn. It revels in a frightening world where there is no private space, private communication, or thought to a degree that makes the efforts of the NSA and FBI seem benign.
10
Sorry Sarah but the world needs your organization just as much as I need melanoma. You and your organization are disrupters and antagonists, nothing more. You serve no real purpose other than causing angst, which is really so sophomoric, like junior-high girls digging up dirt on other girls in school and causing them social difficulty. I actually think that you people would be happy with a world where nobody trusts any institution and therefore will not engage in any serious considerations without stupid "dirty laundry" things that you have somehow made up or dredged up by prying into personal communications.
It is a very, very sick niche that you have made for yourselves in this world. There is nothing positive about your present existence in this life. You and yours are juvenile-delinquent pests, socially and politically.
It is a very, very sick niche that you have made for yourselves in this world. There is nothing positive about your present existence in this life. You and yours are juvenile-delinquent pests, socially and politically.
22
"We publish without fear or favor"
Without favor? I can't imagine that this woman wrote this with a straight face.
Without favor? I can't imagine that this woman wrote this with a straight face.
16
Sorry, Ms. Harrison, but you don't get a pass for your organization's unmediated data dumps. You need to own the consequences of your actions. Context matters, and not all releases are or have been equal. By hewing to your doctrine of purity, your organization has abetted forces that would happily annihilate all freedom you claim to defend. Keep on with your oblivious dedication to the release of ill-gotten information, and you, Assange, Snowden, and others will arrive not at your Elysium of infinite access to truth but rather just its opposite.
13
This is rich. After having used a steady trickle of leaked documents over the last several months to keep alive suspicions of something nefarious about Secretary Clinton's emails, now one of its editors feigns disbelief that anyone could think Wikileaks and Mr. Assange were unbiased in this election. Unbelievable.
27
Julian Assange was engaged in a personal crusade against Hillary Clinton. He didn't care about the outcome, even though the cost was our democracy and the future of our planet. I think and hope that WikiLeaks is done. You have no moral compass.
23
"We publish without fear or favor". Given the timing and content of the releases over the past few months, all I can say is "you have to be kidding me". Sadly, Wikileaks has shot its credibility.
16
I support Wikileaks. I don't buy the attempt to smear their work by claiming it emanates from the Evil Empire. Frankly the US is a pretty potent evil empire itself. Wikileaks is a necessary antidote to tyranny by secrecy. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
5
Assange and the rest of you should be in prison. You are a bunch of thieves.
10
This is very naive. I certainly embrace the idea of open information, but Wikileak has been made into a propaganda tool and you don't see it. Claiming innocence and honest motives is cute, but in reality you are used for a purpose. And an accused rapist is not a hero.
9
Lovely mission statement. Stirring defense. But if something seems too good to be true...
1
Harrison, if only what you say here was true. It is not. You are a stooge for Putin and you helped elect what may be the mot dangerous American president in our history. Worse then shame on you.
14
If WikiLeaks is no pawn of Russia, I look forward to the massive dissemination of materials from Vladimir Putin's ruthless kleptocracy.
9
You keep doing what you do and expose the ugliness of our political system.
What a joke to accuse Wikileaks and Russia of meddling when we meddle all over the world.
God forbid someone does something that to the ruler of the feee world. Such amazing hypocrisy.
Wikileaks exposed the ugly underbelly of our broken and corrupt political system and we need to fix it and stop whining about it.
Wikileaks did us a big favor and is helping to weed out the weaklings and the bad seeds.
If the bad actors in the parties on both sides of the fence don't want their bad behavior exposed the solution is simple.
Grow up, start behaving, do the right things and then you'll have nothing to fear.
What a joke to accuse Wikileaks and Russia of meddling when we meddle all over the world.
God forbid someone does something that to the ruler of the feee world. Such amazing hypocrisy.
Wikileaks exposed the ugly underbelly of our broken and corrupt political system and we need to fix it and stop whining about it.
Wikileaks did us a big favor and is helping to weed out the weaklings and the bad seeds.
If the bad actors in the parties on both sides of the fence don't want their bad behavior exposed the solution is simple.
Grow up, start behaving, do the right things and then you'll have nothing to fear.
7
Wiki Leaks' perspective is simplistic. Especially when most of what was "leaked" during the campaign was the normal back and forth of humans seeking together to define a strategy. Selectively, pulling back the curtain without thought about veracity, genuine impact, and true implications shows a naive, puritanical arrogance and you can wash your hands of the outcome. This convenient, immature and a fundamentally serves your own agenda.
6
Ms. Harrison "can understand the frustration, however misplaced, from Clinton supporters." Isn't that nice, considering that WikiLeaks, with all its vaunted impartiality, focused all of its energies on releasing documents potentially harmful to Hillary? Where are the RNC emails, Ms. Harrison? Or any other documents relating to the Republicans? Save your platitudes and self-righteousness for someone naive and/or stupid enough to believe them.
10
Assange's own statements regarding Clinton and the info and the timing of the releases, whether planned by you or by the document providers which you aided, tell me you were a willing tool to influence a very important election towards a demagogue coming to power.
Consequently I have lost all faith in Wikileaks. And more than that I would relish hard times on your organization for at least for the 4 years you have helped unleashed Trump on the world.
Consequently I have lost all faith in Wikileaks. And more than that I would relish hard times on your organization for at least for the 4 years you have helped unleashed Trump on the world.
6
Yeah, just a coincidence the only information you receive is about Democrats. Watcha gonna do?
7
"We have been accused of abetting the candidacy of Donald J.Trump by publishing cryptographically authenticated information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its influence over the Democratic National Committee, the implication being that a news organization should have withheld accurate, newsworthy information from the public."
Right. Whatever.
If you can hack the DNC, you can hack the IRS. Let's see Donald's taxes.
Hop to it.
Thanks.
Right. Whatever.
If you can hack the DNC, you can hack the IRS. Let's see Donald's taxes.
Hop to it.
Thanks.
10
Those with nothing to hide, have nothing to hide.
2
Ridiculous. Wikileaks is the shameful medium of another ego-obsessed megalomaniac (besides Trump) - Julian Assange. So where was your hacking of Trump campaign emails during the campaign?
You have zero credibility. Nada. Zilch.
You have zero credibility. Nada. Zilch.
7
Ms. Harrison's assertions that WikiLeaks does not "...pick and choose material to harm our alleged political enemies..." and that it doesn't "...simply dump..." material are both simply not born out by facts. This appears to have been true in the earlier years of WikiLeaks but not more recently.
Ms. Harrison would have us believe that WikiLeaks could not find one damaging set of material about the RNC or President-Elect Trump during the entire election cycle while drip-feeding harmful material about the DNC and Ms. Clinton. Mr. Assange appeared with Bill Maher and even stated they would be releasing material about Mr. Trump including data about his taxes and of course that never happened.
In a conversation between Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein, two big supporters of WikiLeaks agreed much of the material was no longer curated and that Assange had explicitly stated it would no longer be in 2015.
While it's quite understandable that a man under virtual house arrest would turn bitter and that his thinking could be affected, for Ms. Harrison to make these two assertions in the face of the facts in absurd in the extreme.
Ms. Harrison would have us believe that WikiLeaks could not find one damaging set of material about the RNC or President-Elect Trump during the entire election cycle while drip-feeding harmful material about the DNC and Ms. Clinton. Mr. Assange appeared with Bill Maher and even stated they would be releasing material about Mr. Trump including data about his taxes and of course that never happened.
In a conversation between Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein, two big supporters of WikiLeaks agreed much of the material was no longer curated and that Assange had explicitly stated it would no longer be in 2015.
While it's quite understandable that a man under virtual house arrest would turn bitter and that his thinking could be affected, for Ms. Harrison to make these two assertions in the face of the facts in absurd in the extreme.
6
Bunch of malarkey! My question to this author who claims such neutrality and even handedness is: why was there not one article of revelation about Donal Trump as opposed to so many against Hillary Clinton?
With all Mr. Trump's history, his hidden tax records, his history of womanizing, his shady business dealings, not one leaks from infamous Wikileaks revealed anything about him! while we opened our eyes every morning to some other garbage about Hillary!
Shame on Wikileaks , its founder, its editor and the lying proponents of its so called important role in transparency! Malarkey
With all Mr. Trump's history, his hidden tax records, his history of womanizing, his shady business dealings, not one leaks from infamous Wikileaks revealed anything about him! while we opened our eyes every morning to some other garbage about Hillary!
Shame on Wikileaks , its founder, its editor and the lying proponents of its so called important role in transparency! Malarkey
6
If you published emails from Kim Jung Un, Putin, or some of his ex-FSB oligarch friends, you would not have to worry about criminal prosecution, but it is highly likely that your lifestyle would need to change, including your employment and perhaps your identity.
7
How long has wikileaks been around, and what has it accomplished?
The problem is, you only seem to hold Democrats accountable. All you are is a tool to give the uninformed and the clueless an opportunity to take things they can't possibly put in context and use them to make misinformed decisions. You are a political hate group, the worst possible combination of traitors and racists, preying on the foolish to achieve your political ends. Don't give me this garbage that you're somehow a plus for the world. You're political terrorists. The whole lot of you belong in jail.
7
Wikileaks has clearly tried to manipulate the US election this year, has NO accountability, and the arrogance and naked grab for power of this essay infuriate and astonish me. What Wikileaks will, in the end, accomplish, is LESS transparency about world affairs as governments and other institutions become even more guarded, less transparent. Wikileaks is a force for evil.
6
Viva wikileaks, the world's political whistleblower. Wikileaks would be bad if the world didn't need it; once it is gone, what will replace it?
5
How come nothing came out about Trump during, the election or now in Wiki Leaks, or any Hedge fund people?
Sounds like a biased and calculating organization to me.
Sounds like a biased and calculating organization to me.
5
Thank you, WikiLeaks. Please keep doing what you do. I, for one, am appreciative that the electorate learned of the corruption in the DNC. How very telling that the establishment media turned against you when you exposed the DNC corruption, along with some of,the media's participation in that corruption. Shows exactly why WikiLeaks is needed.
1
Is this a joke? It might be a little believable if not for the complete one sidedness of the leaks in the election. Are you honestly telling us with a straight face that you had nothing to leak about the RNC and trump campaign? Too little, too late, you just look like a political hack. And despite your best efforts Hillary still got more votes.
6
How dare you intervene in a sovereign election to execute a grudge against one of our candidates. The statement, "we publish without fear or favor" is demonstrably untrue. NY Times, in my humble opinion, you have offered this person and her organization a platform that they truly do not deserve.
5
You have no morals. Millions of Americans including myself will suffer as the result of your organization's actions. Will you also persecute the tweeter in chief with the same vigor that applied when helping him get elected? I seriously doubt it. Until you help us who are now in danger as Americans, I won't believe a single thing I read in this piece of garbage.
6
The illegally - obtained information may be "accurate and newsworthy", but that is not a very high standard for what to publish. If you swamp people with huge amounts of data on one side of an election, you are purposefully having a political effect.
There are no doubt tens of thousands of "accurate and newsworthy" Trump emails waiting to be published.
Your moral smugness is misplaced.
There are no doubt tens of thousands of "accurate and newsworthy" Trump emails waiting to be published.
Your moral smugness is misplaced.
3
Now WikiLeaks is normalized.......Toto, we're not in Kansas any more.
WikiLeaks' crowning achievement is helping Trump get elected. So much for crowning achievements.
6
Oh you don't pick and choose materials to harm your political enemies? Then explain how you "guarantee maximum impact" to your (anonymous) sources. Where's your accountability?
Get off your high horse. Yours is an organization of traitors and snakes.
Get off your high horse. Yours is an organization of traitors and snakes.
2
While I am in favor of WikiLeaks and support the exposing of the powerful in the Democratic Party to the sunlight; I can't help but wonder where were the leaks about Donald Trump?
Surely a man involved in so many shady practices and dealings must have had plenty of material for you to use?
And yet nothing...
Surely a man involved in so many shady practices and dealings must have had plenty of material for you to use?
And yet nothing...
2
Julian Assange is an arrogant anti-democratic accused rapist. It is shameful to defend him. It is even more shameful to defend him after he did his best to put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse and destroy Hillary Clinton. Control of information is power: Julian Assange and Wikileaks area all about power, their own. To give it the veneer of being public service is... shameful.
2
If you are not vindictive and don't play favorites, how come no leaks concerning Donald Trump?
2
Why doesn't wikileaks publish and Russian material? Because it's a front for the KGB (FSB).
https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-inte...
It's not a coincidencee that Wikileaks conducted an orchestrated campaign against Hillary Clinton: Putin hates her for condemning his 2011 election fraud.
Did anyone notice that Wikileaks did not publish any material damaging to the GOP in the election run-up?
https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-inte...
It's not a coincidencee that Wikileaks conducted an orchestrated campaign against Hillary Clinton: Putin hates her for condemning his 2011 election fraud.
Did anyone notice that Wikileaks did not publish any material damaging to the GOP in the election run-up?
1
How naive. As you said "We prefer not to know who our sources are; we do not want to". The inner communications of any/most organizations would be embarrassing - not to say you shouldn't have printed the multitude of DNC & Clinton related emails... that is perhaps another argument - but by not printing any inner communication related to Trump or the RNC you give a totally inaccurate & biased presentation. Every major company & organization has private & probably embarrassing documents, emails, & discussions and by your efforts you give a totally naive & biassed perspective. One can only imagine what kinds of communications and conversations where going on within Trump Tower - apparently Wiki Leaks was clueless or perhaps biased. Assange's anger towards Clinton is certainly well documented... he is a little man locked in a little room in an embassy.
2
I could almost condone what you do if it didn't publish private information about people that have no bearing on world affairs. Stop trying to legitimize yourselves. Assange only cares about himself and should be brought to justice for his sexual misdeeds. Perfect, you are not.
2
Contextualize. Is that what they are calling it now? Already the word "context" has lost all meaning. If someone reads an email that wasn't sent or intended for them, the gist of it is already out of context. When you take something that is private and make it public -- out of context. And when you spend months hyping it and editing it and adding a soundtrack...that is just junk. And when, in addition to everything else, you are running away from a rape charge, that puts the Assange as Martyr scenario in a whole new light. And that light is shed on your character, your intentions, your veracity, everything.
2
I recommend that Sarah Harrison (and everybody else) read "The Circle" by Dave Eggers.
2
Sarah Harrison wrote, "Over the last decade we have vetted, indexed and published an average of 3,000 documents per day." Impressive. But looking at the hacked [stolen] Clinton emails, I can't help feeling like WikiLeaks needs to curate, not just index. Why publish personal emails? I can understand Secretary of State emails if something seems fishy, but personal ones... or campaign business emails? These were not written for public consumption and are not evidence of a conspiracy,... unless by conspiracy, you mean she wanted to win an election. I'd sure hate it if all of my emails were dumped onto a public site.
For all of your denials, Ms. Harrison, it is hard to believe that Assange as an unbiased player. His predictions that certain releases would result in indictments were petty vindictiveness.
Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. WikiLeaks may have started that way, but they are looking more and more like a stolen information laundering corporation.
For all of your denials, Ms. Harrison, it is hard to believe that Assange as an unbiased player. His predictions that certain releases would result in indictments were petty vindictiveness.
Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. WikiLeaks may have started that way, but they are looking more and more like a stolen information laundering corporation.
35
It’s way too convenient for Wikileaks to take a neutral view on the material they release. The argument in this piece is the same that internet sharing sites attempt to use when people post illegal material – “we’re not responsible for content – we just store and transmit”. That position is never tenable. Increasingly the stuff that Wikileaks obtains is provided by individuals and groups with a clear political agenda that has nothing to do with transparency. The side that ‘wins’ is the one with the better security, and the better hackers. The people that run Wikileaks can’t simply shrug their shoulders and wipe their hands clean of the consequences.
17
If we accept that Wikileaks is important, then we must realize that they are also extremely one-sided and biased. In the presidential election, there were never any leaks of Republican emails, presumably because the Russian hackers were definitely more interested tilting the election to Trump. I accept transparency, but only if it is two-way, see-through glass!
20
MM,
I like the two-way see-through glass analogy.
I like the two-way see-through glass analogy.
1
WikiLeaks has always had an anti-American bias. This time, they had an anti-Hillary bias, because in her they saw the likelihood that American interests would be effectively continued around the world. They saw in Trump American isolationism, retreat from global trade and domestic divisions - in short a weaker America. For WikiLeaks to suggest that they are not biased regarding American politics is plainly untrue.
Should Trump prove to be successful, he will be a WikiLeaks target, as would any effective president. Should he damage American interests, I'm sure he will be left alone, or perhaps even supported if WikiLeaks can obtain information from Trump's political opponents.
Should Trump prove to be successful, he will be a WikiLeaks target, as would any effective president. Should he damage American interests, I'm sure he will be left alone, or perhaps even supported if WikiLeaks can obtain information from Trump's political opponents.
12
I never liked WikiLeaks because they chose a side rather than show a truer picture of what lies just beyond sight. They played a significant role electing the bigot Trump to the presidency with an assist by the Russians. The morality of taking one side against another in a US presidential election and choosing the authoritarian racist side shows an utter lack of ethics or adherence to core convictions. It was not an exercise in accountability. It was a hit job.
That said, yes we need ways to hold leaders accountable. Absolutely. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if Trump had been held accountable and his emails disclosed during the election.
That said, yes we need ways to hold leaders accountable. Absolutely. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if Trump had been held accountable and his emails disclosed during the election.
12
While the exposure of wrongdoing is in theory a good thing, a group that marches at the direction of one narcissist (Assange) to blatantly help another (Trump) is just a tool in the hands of those that provide the 'information', in this case Russia. The truth is that Wikileaks has never really provided information that was substantive; 99.9% of their material has been a yawn, like most of the recent trove of hacked emails. Even the first major release were mostly routine military communications, and those that weren't should never have been released. I have never thought that Wikileaks was a force for good, it's simply a mechanism for Assange's personal animus towards any secrecy, at least secrecy that doesn't involve his own life. It might be interesting to see his hacked emails and other communications from around the time he was accused of raping those women in Sweden.
19
It's only circumstancial, but the timing of the release of the WikiLeaks material as well as the way in which it dripped out certainly is reason to wonder if there wasn't some other intent than "transparency" and "truth". Additionally, we have Assange earlier in the Presidential campaign alluding to bombshells to come, which again makes it seem WikiLeaks had earlier access to the information. If it was only 'transparency' and 'truth' it is quite unique how those two just happened to intersect with the final month of the election campaign. I for one am not buying that explanation.
16
I agree. I didn't see any documents leaked for Donald Trump, either. They revolved around the "establishment", which was Hillary, in their opinion. I did enjoy the few times when they said a bombshell was coming, and then they rescheduled for a later date.
1
The mark of civilization is the ability to control impulses and automatic responses, to thing, evaluate, and decide before taking action. If Wikileaks is an automated dumping ground for whatever falls into its lap, it simply becomes the blow horn for whoever manages to most effectively feed and manipulate it. Defending freedom of information on absolutist grounds fails to respect the power of information. It is like defending gun rights absolutely, when clearly there are issues with firing off bullets at random. If the word is more powerful than the sword, then we should be careful with our words, and when things said in private are disbursed in public, they become stray and randomized bullets. Before Wikileaks releases anything, I think they should release every email, every conversation, every diary of everyone working for Wikileaks, releasing information to Wikileaks, or supporting Wikileaks in any way. I want to know who is behind the trigger before I can decide if the bullet is good or bad.
11
Curt Diedroff (below) is 100% right. Assange has expressed open animus for Hilary Clinton. In the end, he and Wikileaks are really information anarchists. For them, government is by definition an evil to be undermined. They make no attempt to distinguish between, for example, efforts to surveil and combat terrorists or hostile governments, and efforts to surveil ordinary citizens. They make no effort to distinguish between a government trying to defend its citizens and a government (like their info-source Russia) that ruthlessly bombs children in Aleppo and invades its neighbors. They make no effort to distinguish between a flawed but competent candidate (Clinton) and an ignorant, reckless and potentially dangerous candidate (Trump). Pickled in its own self-righteousness, Wikileaks itself has emerged as one of the most ruthless spy organizations in the world. What is more, Wikileaks appears to be a monarchy, under the kingship of Assange: Ironic that the king of the peeping toms was able to affect the outcome of the world's most powerful democracy.
16
There certainly is a lot to dislike about the crooked Hillary Clinton. Her and her husband's long history of dishonesty is well documented: Travelgate, Pardongate, Whitewater, cattle future-gate, missing billing records, deviant sexual escapades, etc. There are many who do not believe our own presently corrupt, elitist government, abetted by a biased liberal media, in announcing that the Russian government is the source for WikiLeaks concerning WikiLeaks' exposing the shenanigans of the DNC in rigging the nomination of this lying hag to run for POTUS. Holding my nose on Nov. 8, I chose the far, far lesser of two evils. Now I am hoping that we may be able to Make America Great Again.
1
WikiLeaks and the problems it faces from, of all places, the Western world?
Supposing we take WikiLeaks at face value, that it is dedicated to truth, transparency, exposure of power structure, that it falls in line with entire glory of Western Civilization insofar as success of such has been dependent on clarity, insight, whether this means comprehension and development of engine of automobile or anatomy of a society such as given in a great novel, it is a great shock that WikiLeaks should be "trouble" from perspective of Western Civilization.
Western Civilization has often spoken of the need for political transparency, scientific transparency etc.--that you cannot comprehend and fix something unless it is "laid out on the table for examination"--and that Western political structures owe their superiority and flexibility in crises to openness and lack the drawbacks of less open and less transparent political structures whatever they may be (theocracy, dictatorship, monarchy).
Well, it seems the West is not all that dedicated to openness, transparency, that there appears to be limit to such for various reasons and to different degrees depending on epoch--in fact many argue today, and from both right and left wings, that there are strong safety, national security, "political stability" reasons to have a public sphere which is rather closed or at least "correct" for continued advancement of the West. We need a close examination of this problem. Good subject for a novel.
Supposing we take WikiLeaks at face value, that it is dedicated to truth, transparency, exposure of power structure, that it falls in line with entire glory of Western Civilization insofar as success of such has been dependent on clarity, insight, whether this means comprehension and development of engine of automobile or anatomy of a society such as given in a great novel, it is a great shock that WikiLeaks should be "trouble" from perspective of Western Civilization.
Western Civilization has often spoken of the need for political transparency, scientific transparency etc.--that you cannot comprehend and fix something unless it is "laid out on the table for examination"--and that Western political structures owe their superiority and flexibility in crises to openness and lack the drawbacks of less open and less transparent political structures whatever they may be (theocracy, dictatorship, monarchy).
Well, it seems the West is not all that dedicated to openness, transparency, that there appears to be limit to such for various reasons and to different degrees depending on epoch--in fact many argue today, and from both right and left wings, that there are strong safety, national security, "political stability" reasons to have a public sphere which is rather closed or at least "correct" for continued advancement of the West. We need a close examination of this problem. Good subject for a novel.
2
This opinion has got to be one of the more self serving ones I've read in the last 10 years. WikiLeaks did not shed more light on anything for this presidential election. It was one sided and contributed nothing but angst and trivia to the 2016 election. If you were so concerned about transparency and secrecy why didn't you find a way to leak Donald Trump's tax returns? Why weren't you able to find details we didn't know about his bankruptcy filings. And who asked you to interfere with our elections? No matter who was elected WikiLeaks had no business bringing up, time and again, things that have been over so often we can recite the details in our sleep.
You are not a force for good or transparency for anyone. What you do is not journalism, not whistle blowing, and certainly not fair because you don't leak both sides of the issue. You didn't do the United States any favors with the information you unleashed about Clinton or anyone else this time around. Thanks for nothing. Or maybe I should say, thanks for helping to put a completely unqualified individual in the White House.
You are not a force for good or transparency for anyone. What you do is not journalism, not whistle blowing, and certainly not fair because you don't leak both sides of the issue. You didn't do the United States any favors with the information you unleashed about Clinton or anyone else this time around. Thanks for nothing. Or maybe I should say, thanks for helping to put a completely unqualified individual in the White House.
30
I understand that The Times wants to present multiple viewpoints in its opinion pages. But does it have to give such a prominent position to Vladimir Putin and his puppets?
Somewhere there is a Klansman or a Nazi who would live to pen a piece for the NYTimes opinion pages about how whites are superior or why (fill in the blank) is evil and must be eliminated. They can even give an impassioned defense of Steve Bannon in the White House.
Will they be given the same opportunity as this Putin puppet? Or will The Times realize that sometimes it is a good idea to say "no"?
Somewhere there is a Klansman or a Nazi who would live to pen a piece for the NYTimes opinion pages about how whites are superior or why (fill in the blank) is evil and must be eliminated. They can even give an impassioned defense of Steve Bannon in the White House.
Will they be given the same opportunity as this Putin puppet? Or will The Times realize that sometimes it is a good idea to say "no"?
74
How inflammatory of you. How accurate the article has been in identifying the support of Democrats when the victim of WikiLeaks was a conservative. Put the shoe on the other foot? And people like you become very disingenuous.
3
Standing resolute and speaking truth to power is the greatest good that journalism can provide. Thank you Wikileaks for providing transparency to the powerful forces of our society.
15
Thank you American. You get it. Everybody riding here against Wikileaks today was undoubtedly for Wikileaks when it was exposing their favorite hated conservative George Bush. Now suddenly they have a moral argument against WikiLeaks because it damaged their dishonest candidate Hillary Clinton. And that's not just me saying that. Over 60% of the voting public viewed her as dishonest. That dishonesty apparently extends 2 her supporters. No wonder they wanted her for president.
3
Wikileaks is NOT journalism. Simply releasing streams of information is not journalism.
2
Ms. Harrison, your moral arrogance blinds you to a few shortcomings in Wikileak's practices. If you have such a passion for exposing the internal procedures of powerful people and organizations, why don't you publish your own memos and e-mails? Wikileaks can no longer pretend not to play a role in politics, and surely the public has a right to know the interactions between Assange and his colleagues.
Second, you seem to confuse gossip and normal human weaknesses with corruption. People who work together in high pressure situations, like a political campaign, inevitably blow off steam by making snide comments about each other. Comments by Mr. Podesta about Hillary Clinton's judgment do not reveal anything about corruption or Clinton's fitness for high office. They simply shed light on his reaction to stress.
Also, your claim to purity of motives seeks to obscure the cynicism behind a strategy that leaks sensitive information late in a campaign, when the victims lack sufficient time to respond to the contents of the leak. The pious assertion of your impartiality in the election cannot persuade anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the facts.
Second, you seem to confuse gossip and normal human weaknesses with corruption. People who work together in high pressure situations, like a political campaign, inevitably blow off steam by making snide comments about each other. Comments by Mr. Podesta about Hillary Clinton's judgment do not reveal anything about corruption or Clinton's fitness for high office. They simply shed light on his reaction to stress.
Also, your claim to purity of motives seeks to obscure the cynicism behind a strategy that leaks sensitive information late in a campaign, when the victims lack sufficient time to respond to the contents of the leak. The pious assertion of your impartiality in the election cannot persuade anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the facts.
49
Sorry, but WikiLeaks has lost all credibility with those of us who might once have been among its most ardent supporters. Where were your talented hackers when Trump refused to share his tax returns? And his worldwide conflicts of interest and business dealings? And the sordid back stories of the thousands of lawsuits against him? And the details of his sexual assaults? And his misrepresentation of his own personal failures and lies, from poor academic performance to fake bone spurs? And don't even get me started on the rape allegations against your fearless leader. Yes, the world needs access to truth, and essays like this, full of lies and distortions, show us why.
124
WikiLeaks doesn't hack anyone--they receive materials and publish. They've repeatedly said they'd have published material on Trump if they'd received it.
2
Julian Assage is a puppet of the Russian government. Wikileaks chose sides and timed their email dumps to cause the most suspicion possible. Your organization is engaging in activities that undermine democracy. You are cyber terrorists.
39
Lies, corruption, war crimes, and a litany of nefarious acts hide in the shadows, whether by governments, corporatists, clergy or any persons or organizations who claim, falsely, moral superiority. You expose their questionable or clearly evil acts for us to judge, as it should be.
Persist, persist, persist. You keep us informed and honest.
Persist, persist, persist. You keep us informed and honest.
10
I believe you are correct, "the world" does indeed stand to benefit from an organization like the WikiLeaks you describe. And probably to benefit greatly.
Sadly you, the WikiLeaks-on-the ground, the WikiLeaks as it at actually exists today, are very far from that ideal today. It is only the rare (and likely uninformed) person who would believe your overblown (and Superman-worthy) claim that "We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth.".
One reason is the man you clearly still idealize, Mr. Assange. Another is the extraordinarily strong impression created by the timing and the content of your recent 'wholesale dumps' of material during the US election. It strains credulity to imagine it was all a simple coincidence of timing and topic.
I, for one, will continue to thank WikiLeaks for past accomplishments.
And I will continue to believe as I do now that, like any other once-great and long standing organization, it has fallen victim to the fallibility of the people who created and ran in it, and that it has prioritized its own interests in influence and survival over the mission that had seemed so indispensable at the beginning.
Your inability to recognize the challenges of perception facing WikiLeaks, and your clear tendency to blame "the system" and sheep who follow, for the impressions you attempt top rectify in this piece tell us all we need to know.
Sadly you, the WikiLeaks-on-the ground, the WikiLeaks as it at actually exists today, are very far from that ideal today. It is only the rare (and likely uninformed) person who would believe your overblown (and Superman-worthy) claim that "We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth.".
One reason is the man you clearly still idealize, Mr. Assange. Another is the extraordinarily strong impression created by the timing and the content of your recent 'wholesale dumps' of material during the US election. It strains credulity to imagine it was all a simple coincidence of timing and topic.
I, for one, will continue to thank WikiLeaks for past accomplishments.
And I will continue to believe as I do now that, like any other once-great and long standing organization, it has fallen victim to the fallibility of the people who created and ran in it, and that it has prioritized its own interests in influence and survival over the mission that had seemed so indispensable at the beginning.
Your inability to recognize the challenges of perception facing WikiLeaks, and your clear tendency to blame "the system" and sheep who follow, for the impressions you attempt top rectify in this piece tell us all we need to know.
17
Self serving nonsense. Wikileaks has become merely an instrument of Julian Asssange's petty personal grievances. There is a place for radical transparency but Wikileaks is fatally flawed..
44
"We publish without fear or favor" is a lie. Wikileaks chose to publish personal emails of Democrats to interfere with the U.S. election. That's not in service to the truth, it's in service to chaos.
44
Frankly, I'm surprised your organization has any principles whatsoever beyond that of an agent provocateur. Your enormous egos have endangered all sorts of innocent people and fragile international relationships. Of course, you meant to disrupt the U.S. election and you succeeded and numerous intelligence experts have pointed to the Russian government as being behind this effort. Yesterday on NPR's Radio Times, a U.S. intelligence expert described how the Russians look for people with tremendous egos to be tools (some unwitting) of the Russian government in order to weaken the west. They certainly found willing stooges with the WikiLeaks gang. Now that your efforts have basically destabilized the planet, please know that much of the civilized world has zero respect for you or your ilk. You've done mankind no favors.
51
altruism stands tall in direct sunlight. wikileaks operates with altruism as the main motivator. powers that rule countries do not like their malfeasance known. well too bad sunlight and altruism rule the world. Leaders quit being bad and treat your populace with respect. they might just love you then. and if not love maybe like and respect will become regular behavior. better than rancor and ruin for all.
4
Umm, no Wikileaks operates solely as a sleazy criminal gang trying to help Julian Assange evade justice and carry out a personal grudge against Hillary Clinton, while serving as a mouthpiece for Russian criminals. Altruism is about the last thing that I'd attribute to these cybercriminals.
2
This is all very well. But there are four things that Wikileaks hasn't ever answered - and they are not answered here:
(1) Does Wikileaks admit that any degree of governmental confidentiality is justified. If the answer is yes, how does the organization discriminate between what is legitimately a 'secret' and what isn't?
(2) Why didn't Wikileaks redact (ie remove) names when they publication is likely to prove damaging>? Or doesn't Wikileaks make this distinction?
(3) There is a clear difference between publishing leaks - and publishing those leaks in the midst of an election campaign when the publication can have an effect on the outcome. Or does Wikileaks not admit that there is a difference?
(4) Does Wikileaks REALLY ask us to believe that all their sources remain confidential through the drop box method - ie that they don't know who is leaking.
So long as these questions aren't answered I'll feel that the Wikileaks candour and transparency is partial...
(1) Does Wikileaks admit that any degree of governmental confidentiality is justified. If the answer is yes, how does the organization discriminate between what is legitimately a 'secret' and what isn't?
(2) Why didn't Wikileaks redact (ie remove) names when they publication is likely to prove damaging>? Or doesn't Wikileaks make this distinction?
(3) There is a clear difference between publishing leaks - and publishing those leaks in the midst of an election campaign when the publication can have an effect on the outcome. Or does Wikileaks not admit that there is a difference?
(4) Does Wikileaks REALLY ask us to believe that all their sources remain confidential through the drop box method - ie that they don't know who is leaking.
So long as these questions aren't answered I'll feel that the Wikileaks candour and transparency is partial...
21
Sarah,
Your noble intentions break down when you look at what's happening with your service. Hacked (stolen) emails and documents are just that - stolen. How many people could withstand the scrutiny of their personal emails revealed, let alone those involving state secrets? But that's what you do, not caring about how it was stolen, who stole it, or who revealed it (perhaps out of conscience, perhaps out of malfeasance, or personal / national gain at the expense of the victims). You're a major part of the supply chain for stolen goods - information. We are in an information economy, and you're crippling it. People who knowing sell stolen goods are still criminals, despite their protests that they don't want to know where it came from or how it came to them.
There has been widespread agreement that WikiLeaks played a major role in the election of Donald Trump by publishing hacked emails involving Hillary Clinton. The measured effects of these was shown to be greater than the margin of victory for Trump, and they were a major focal point in the campaign. There was no equality, showing Republican AND Democratic emails. What if Donald Trumps tax returns were leaked? What about his sealed court settlements and numerous contracts? What about his emails? I'm not saying that they should have been. I'm saying that private needs to be private, and noble-minded people like yourself need to be viewed as part of the criminal stolen goods chain that you are.
Your noble intentions break down when you look at what's happening with your service. Hacked (stolen) emails and documents are just that - stolen. How many people could withstand the scrutiny of their personal emails revealed, let alone those involving state secrets? But that's what you do, not caring about how it was stolen, who stole it, or who revealed it (perhaps out of conscience, perhaps out of malfeasance, or personal / national gain at the expense of the victims). You're a major part of the supply chain for stolen goods - information. We are in an information economy, and you're crippling it. People who knowing sell stolen goods are still criminals, despite their protests that they don't want to know where it came from or how it came to them.
There has been widespread agreement that WikiLeaks played a major role in the election of Donald Trump by publishing hacked emails involving Hillary Clinton. The measured effects of these was shown to be greater than the margin of victory for Trump, and they were a major focal point in the campaign. There was no equality, showing Republican AND Democratic emails. What if Donald Trumps tax returns were leaked? What about his sealed court settlements and numerous contracts? What about his emails? I'm not saying that they should have been. I'm saying that private needs to be private, and noble-minded people like yourself need to be viewed as part of the criminal stolen goods chain that you are.
42
This is a must-read op-ed. Yes, mainstream media such as The New York Times were happy to publish WikiLeaks' revelations about war and torture policies of the Bush administration, but took umbrage at similar disclosures of Clinton's "dirty tricks" or her failures at the State Department. Like all legitimate news services, WikiLeaks protects its sources; because of its online submissions system Mr. Assange's outlet rarely even knows their identities. As the Democratic Party begins to retreat from the pro-Wall Street, pro-free trade policies that lost it the election, The Times should repudiate its attack on fellow-journalists.
25
WikiLeaks isn't journalism. WikiLeaks is selected information dumping designed to promote political upheaval. There is more of Jim Jones to Julian Assange than Martin Luther King, Jr.
1
Your flaw is thinking that simply dumping a lot of information is informing or reporting. Your approach simply lets others use you to tell the story they want. I am guessing that you are somewhat realistic so you know that only those with a vested interest are going to search through hundreds of thousands of documents to get at the information.
If you have classified, verified, and contextualized the information then you need to offer a summary or at least a repudiation if the information is miss-classified by another institution.
Simply accepting and dumping large caches of documents is naive and harmful as it gives fuel for others with far less noble goals.
If you have classified, verified, and contextualized the information then you need to offer a summary or at least a repudiation if the information is miss-classified by another institution.
Simply accepting and dumping large caches of documents is naive and harmful as it gives fuel for others with far less noble goals.
33
"I can understand the frustration, however misplaced, from Clinton supporters. "
Cab you really? Is ti really misplaced? I was a somewhat, perhaps a wary, supporter of the original because :
"That’s something that Democrats, along with everyone who believes in the accountability of governments, should be happy about."
We do indeed. But where is your argument that Wikileaks has not become political too? How do we know that Mr Assange was not pursuing a personal grudge against Mrs. Clinton? There were really no abuse by the republicans? by trump? by his minions?
Had both dems and repubs been leaked perhaps your argument would hold some water. I cannot help but think and I think others do too, that these were designed against HRC, especially since these 'leaks' were merely chit chat between her surrogates - not her voice- that is often heard behind closed doors?
Your organization is one that now strikes fear, not because you shine a light, but because you lurk in the shadows. Even here, this late in the morning I seem to be the first to comment. Are people afraid they will be hacked if they say something disparaging?
Your defense sounds more like one of a cult follower of a charismatic leader than one of a dedicated seeker of truth. Your argument rings hollow.
Your organization has helped tilt an election in one direction, not the sole cause, but certainly one of the factors. Wikileaks did not shine a light on this election , but cast a shadow over democracy.
Cab you really? Is ti really misplaced? I was a somewhat, perhaps a wary, supporter of the original because :
"That’s something that Democrats, along with everyone who believes in the accountability of governments, should be happy about."
We do indeed. But where is your argument that Wikileaks has not become political too? How do we know that Mr Assange was not pursuing a personal grudge against Mrs. Clinton? There were really no abuse by the republicans? by trump? by his minions?
Had both dems and repubs been leaked perhaps your argument would hold some water. I cannot help but think and I think others do too, that these were designed against HRC, especially since these 'leaks' were merely chit chat between her surrogates - not her voice- that is often heard behind closed doors?
Your organization is one that now strikes fear, not because you shine a light, but because you lurk in the shadows. Even here, this late in the morning I seem to be the first to comment. Are people afraid they will be hacked if they say something disparaging?
Your defense sounds more like one of a cult follower of a charismatic leader than one of a dedicated seeker of truth. Your argument rings hollow.
Your organization has helped tilt an election in one direction, not the sole cause, but certainly one of the factors. Wikileaks did not shine a light on this election , but cast a shadow over democracy.
57
This piece perfectly exhibits the total lack of self reflection we have come to expect from wiki-leaks. The author's adherence to Assange is troubling. WikiLeaks claims to be journalism in the public interest but it's actions show it to be nothing but a tool for Assange to attack his enemies and for Russia to destabilize democracy. Shame.
103
Democracy? You meant kleptocracy, have't you?
2
So, now the author imagines Wikileaks has only the highest and most noble motives? This after the catastrophic insertion in our election, after her boss publically announced his vindictive intent was to bring HRC down and toss the election to Trump. He said it with a smile made of pure malice--the joker in Batman.
130
But isn't it really true that the emails they released regardless of intent we're actually Hillary Clinton's emails and her supporters? Where is a confirmation of 60% of the voting Public's distrust and belief of her dishonesty? You're mad because a horrible woman is not president. You don't sound very sincere to me at all as an individual. You sound more like a sore loser.
1
Wikileaks has done nothing whatever to keep candidate and President-elect Trump accountable. All of its efforts over the past year were directed towards defeating Ms. Clinton, towards whom Mr. Assange holds a personal grudge. Ms. Harrison's claim of Wikileaks neutrality in US politics ("not taking any sides except that of the truth") is farcical.
210
Yes, manipulating the us election and installing PT Barnum was beyond farcical. It is a tragedy for the world. I once was a supporter. Thank you Ms Harrison for being stupid enough to actually publish this and make transparent what happened!
4
Colluding with Russia to influence the American election is not trying to hold the powerful accountable. I gave Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt when it first appeared. Now, not so much.
94
Now, not at all. And to think I once contributed money to them, believing in what I thought they were doing.
2
"We publish without fear or favor"? "We have no institutional bias"? Sure, the pros and cons for an organization like WikiLeaks is complex and nuanced, but the way Sarah Harrison seems to assert the purity of the organization reeks of delusion. This article only makes me more critical of WikiLeaks.
136
"We publish without fear or favor, bringing transparency to powerful factions and secretive institutions, not taking any sides except that of the truth." Really, not taking any sides?
58
Wikileaks has become no different than FoxNews. Their bias is obvious, but they delude themselves to the contrary, which makes it easier for them to peddle their lies to an unsuspecting public.
I guess Julian Assange is still trying to hunt down Trump's tax returns. As if anyone with a double digit IQ believes such nonsense.
I guess Julian Assange is still trying to hunt down Trump's tax returns. As if anyone with a double digit IQ believes such nonsense.
44
Yeah, your brave 'without fear or favor' is delusional. America thanks you for installing PT Barnum, who may very well destroy the climate and any balance that was left on this planet, economically, politically or otherwise. Go stroke yourselves Ms Harrison and Julian. America thanks you for your lopsided transparency. Delusional. Mr robot in the real world. Shame on you.
3
Wikileaks has decided that transparency is an absolute virtue. Practical life experience and basic common sense suggest otherwise.
49
Well said.
1
Information is vital to a democracy, the data exposing the violations in Iraq and Afganistan were prominent in our assessment of those wars. I agree that the data released on Clinton was one-sided and probably supplied by Russian agents, but hate the message, not the messengers. Wikileaks published the data it received without regard to the sender and that is their policy. We should welcome all information and the opportunity to evaluate it ourselves. We are the final arbitrators of its value and validity.
28
Hate a messenger working on behalf of a foreign government.
1
WikiLeaks is nothing more than a de facto Ministry of Propaganda for Putin! I'm sure a lot of folks probably share my own experience of having been sympathetic to WikiLeaks to now being convinced that it has lost all credibility. Ms. Harrison can't overcome what became all too clear during the presidential campaign. She would have us believe that the only leak-worthy material was the non-news on the DNC's internal politics (politics inside the DNC - how shocking!) and equally non-news on Clinton's emails. She would have us believe there was absolutely nothing to expose on the Trump side! No, WikiLeaks has shown rather glaringly that for whatever reason, it has become Putin's mouthpiece. But, what really sealed my disaffection was seeing Assange on TV deflecting like a weasel on where exactly WL got the material. The mealy mouthed dissembling was quite a performance to behold. So, no, Ms. Harrison, nothing coming out of WikiLeaks will ever be worth anything to me again. Assange is a Putin puppet!
206
Where, jnc, is the proof for your assertion that "WikiLeaks is nothing more than a de facto Ministry of Propaganda for Putin"?
2
"My organization, WikiLeaks, took a lot of heat during the run-up to the recent presidential election."
Sorry, no sympathy for all the heat WikiLeaks allegedly took during the election. After the election -- for aiding and abetting the election of Trump, a doomsday /extinction event level crime against humanity, I hope WikiLeaks is glowing red toast.
I guess when you are on a mission from god, you don't think to ask why the Kremlin didn't hack Trump's or the RNC's computers, only the DNC. And Assange obviously didn't get the WikiLeaks press strategy memo to sound neutral and nonpartisan when he brayed on British TV that the WikiLeaks hacked data dump would change the outcome of the US election.
Just to relieve Ms. Harrison of her delusions: WikiLeaks is no more a news organization than Breibart or The Drudge Report. You have less to do with truth or fact than propaganda, disinformation and dirty party tricks.
Anything good WikiLeaks ever hoped to achieve has been wiped out for seven generations. By choosing to carry towels for the Kremlin and act as their agent for the selective release of hacked DNC data, WikiLeaks has become the go to secret weapon for agents provocateur/despots fomenting political climate change and rigging elections.
Hope Mr. Assange enjoys Trump's Inauguration. If he gets invited, they'll seat him next to James Comey. They work well together.
Sorry, no sympathy for all the heat WikiLeaks allegedly took during the election. After the election -- for aiding and abetting the election of Trump, a doomsday /extinction event level crime against humanity, I hope WikiLeaks is glowing red toast.
I guess when you are on a mission from god, you don't think to ask why the Kremlin didn't hack Trump's or the RNC's computers, only the DNC. And Assange obviously didn't get the WikiLeaks press strategy memo to sound neutral and nonpartisan when he brayed on British TV that the WikiLeaks hacked data dump would change the outcome of the US election.
Just to relieve Ms. Harrison of her delusions: WikiLeaks is no more a news organization than Breibart or The Drudge Report. You have less to do with truth or fact than propaganda, disinformation and dirty party tricks.
Anything good WikiLeaks ever hoped to achieve has been wiped out for seven generations. By choosing to carry towels for the Kremlin and act as their agent for the selective release of hacked DNC data, WikiLeaks has become the go to secret weapon for agents provocateur/despots fomenting political climate change and rigging elections.
Hope Mr. Assange enjoys Trump's Inauguration. If he gets invited, they'll seat him next to James Comey. They work well together.
515
Both the Assange and Comey became bastions of liberal decay but first they were iconic purveyors of the truth. I'm so confused now. During which months should I base my judgment of your assessment on WikiLeaks?
You all are just being sore losers and you know it. If right now Wikileaks had been used to destroy Donald Trump'stands candidacy you would be me blasting you for your fake moral outrage.
You all are just being sore losers and you know it. If right now Wikileaks had been used to destroy Donald Trump'stands candidacy you would be me blasting you for your fake moral outrage.
3
Great comment. If anyone doubts their agenda, have them search for info embarrassing to Russia on Wikileaks. I couldn't find any.
1
A well written piece, constructed of broad, idealistic statements, entirely unsupported by example or documentation, in defense of a man accused of criminally abusing women, who prefers being confined to a single building rather than confront his accusers in open court.
While we may benefit from an organization such as one described in this apologia, it isn't Wikileaks.
While we may benefit from an organization such as one described in this apologia, it isn't Wikileaks.
29
Oh please. I was a strong supporter until Assange allied with Putin to help put Putin's puppet in my White House. Actions have consequences, and his slow calculated leaking of stolen emails, slowly at first so Bernie would still be out, then faster and faster after she was the candidate, the consequence is that America now has a pilot for its national plane who has never spent one day in pilot school. We are just screwed thanks to WikiLeaks.
No leaks over Trump and his family in all that time? Gee, Mr. Putin must have hidden those. I hope Assange rots in that embassy for what he did to America.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
No leaks over Trump and his family in all that time? Gee, Mr. Putin must have hidden those. I hope Assange rots in that embassy for what he did to America.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
155
Sarah Harrison is not a "journalist" she's a twit. Assange is a rapist hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy because he's a coward who if he emerges will be arrested and taken back to Sweden to stand trial for being a rapist.
This commentary by Harrison is nothing but spin. The only e-mails they released were ones that they thought would damage Clinton. Trump is a pig who can't leave his stubby fingers off of his phone and twitter account and my bet is that pre--twitter he couldn't keep the stubbies off of a keyboard using e-mail in which he spouted his gross non-sense.
The Democratic Party e--mails were literally nothing to anyone who has ever worked in a political campaign or to anyone who has a functioning brain as the e-mails reflected the kinds of things that are discussed within a campaign -- strategies that may or may not be used, ideas are floated, names are floated but that doesn't mean that action occurs. Look back at the letters written by politicians throughout history -- they reflect the same kind of discussions but now that the populace is so totally ignorant of history and revels in being ignorant and uneducated, those e-mails took on a meaning far greater than anything that they actually contained.
Ms. Harrison is one of the deplorables -- a selfish, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous twit trying to claim a righteousness to which she isn't entitled nor is her organization entitled or the human stain that is Julian Assange who is a man totally without honor
This commentary by Harrison is nothing but spin. The only e-mails they released were ones that they thought would damage Clinton. Trump is a pig who can't leave his stubby fingers off of his phone and twitter account and my bet is that pre--twitter he couldn't keep the stubbies off of a keyboard using e-mail in which he spouted his gross non-sense.
The Democratic Party e--mails were literally nothing to anyone who has ever worked in a political campaign or to anyone who has a functioning brain as the e-mails reflected the kinds of things that are discussed within a campaign -- strategies that may or may not be used, ideas are floated, names are floated but that doesn't mean that action occurs. Look back at the letters written by politicians throughout history -- they reflect the same kind of discussions but now that the populace is so totally ignorant of history and revels in being ignorant and uneducated, those e-mails took on a meaning far greater than anything that they actually contained.
Ms. Harrison is one of the deplorables -- a selfish, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous twit trying to claim a righteousness to which she isn't entitled nor is her organization entitled or the human stain that is Julian Assange who is a man totally without honor
51
But who is holding WikiLeaks accountable - foreign meddling, altered emails, and the underlying bias in which emails this rogue operation chose to pursue - reveal its corruption and lack of transparency and ultimately it's lack of credibility.
85
I've lost all respect for Wikileaks due to not only its one-sided leaking of information but also the timing of the information immediately preceding the election. For this shill to state that Wilileaks is an impartial organization is one of the baldest lies I have ever witnessed.
95
The writer has just proven her statement if looking at these first few comments are any indication. The left praised WikiLeaks when they published hacked emails on the rights dirt. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are saying the leaks are horrible. I truly believe that liberals do not know how hypocritical they have become. When the left tripped all over their self to praise Comey when he announced that he was foregoing the recommendation of charges against HRC but when he updated Congress that some more evidence might have come up, these same people turned on him like a pack of rabid wolves. If the left still does not have any idea why their candidate lost then I suppose they never will. For the health of a two-party system I hope and pray that the party of inclusion will really see they have to be inclusive of all Americans. Yes, even the party that they love to blame all of societies ills on, the non-elite, white males.
11
They never published emails that showed the right's dirt. It began as anti-US and then traveled to pro Trump (bigotry, authoritarianism, etc.).
1
I have one real issue with WikiLeaks and that is an apparent infutation with democracies verses authoritarian regimes (yes that would include China, Russia, Egypt, North Korea, much of Africa - on and on).
When WikiLeaks has a bit more even handed distribution of information transparency across all governments I'll actually believe what they have is all our ideals in mind, instead of what to my mind is a very lopsided view of governmental transgressions.
When WikiLeaks has a bit more even handed distribution of information transparency across all governments I'll actually believe what they have is all our ideals in mind, instead of what to my mind is a very lopsided view of governmental transgressions.
14
I wish Wikileaks would aid Chelsea Manning who is in worse shape than Julian Assange or anyone involved with Wikileaks. She has tried to kill herself twice, is in solitary confinement because of that and is asking President Obama for a commutation of her sentence to time served. I realize that there is a campaign to get President Trump to clear Julian Assange of possible charges in the US but perhaps Mr. Assange could ask Trump to let Chelsea Manning out of prison first.
11
WikiLeaks is an admirable institution, which plays an essential role in increasing transparency in government and business. As a distributor and curator of insider information, it is integral to high-quality journalism and investigation. What it should not do, however- and where Assange has overstepped the line- is claim to be an arbiter of justice. Numerous web articles have quoted him saying that the insights derived from leaked/hacked documents will lead to prosecution and conviction of Clinton. I cannot personally verify of discern whether he has really made such statements, but an overwhelming number of online sources claim that he has.
Assuming that he has actually made such assertions, one has to ask: is it his, or WikiLeak's place, to act as judge, jury, defense, and prosecution? To make an analysis based on partial information and issue proclamations about someone's culpability before they are proven guilty? To claim that the dogma of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be overstepped, based on the convictions of a team of WikiLeaks personnel and journalists (or maybe just Julian himself), even though the accused has not been given a fair trial in a court of law?
This is what makes my heart ache, when it comes to WikiLeaks- not the genuinely critical role it plays in dissemination of information and sheltering of whistle-blowers, but the unwarranted condemnation of those who are still innocent in the eyes of the law and civilized society.
Assuming that he has actually made such assertions, one has to ask: is it his, or WikiLeak's place, to act as judge, jury, defense, and prosecution? To make an analysis based on partial information and issue proclamations about someone's culpability before they are proven guilty? To claim that the dogma of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be overstepped, based on the convictions of a team of WikiLeaks personnel and journalists (or maybe just Julian himself), even though the accused has not been given a fair trial in a court of law?
This is what makes my heart ache, when it comes to WikiLeaks- not the genuinely critical role it plays in dissemination of information and sheltering of whistle-blowers, but the unwarranted condemnation of those who are still innocent in the eyes of the law and civilized society.
5
Forgive me for not necessarily trusting the judgement and integrity of Wikileaks any more than I trust the judgement and integrity of a Rupert Murdoch outlet.
God save us from people on a mission.
Good journalism does indeed seek out transparency, and looks for the web of connections that surround government, business, international politics. It seeks to build the context around events and people. Good journalism exposed the weaknesses of both the people and causes it supports and the people and causes it doesn't.
I can't say I am convinced that Wikileaks, or Julian Assange, meets that standard. Sorry about that.
God save us from people on a mission.
Good journalism does indeed seek out transparency, and looks for the web of connections that surround government, business, international politics. It seeks to build the context around events and people. Good journalism exposed the weaknesses of both the people and causes it supports and the people and causes it doesn't.
I can't say I am convinced that Wikileaks, or Julian Assange, meets that standard. Sorry about that.
23
In principle I agree with wiki-leaks vision of a transparent world where corruption is exposed, but the way it obtains its materials has created a conflict with its mission, in that all sides are not equally exposed. This can be used as a tool of the corrupt to influence views and malign rivals.
They must reconcile this issue to be a credible news source.
They must reconcile this issue to be a credible news source.
10
So we are supposed to believe that Assange's open, virulent hatred of Hillary Clinton had no effect whatsoever on WikiLeaks' decisions about which documents to publish, or solicit?
Sorry. The ethical standards of an accused sexual predator who hides in Equador's consulate for years rather than face his accusers are clear enough.
Sorry. The ethical standards of an accused sexual predator who hides in Equador's consulate for years rather than face his accusers are clear enough.
22
Excessive secrecy has long been the prerogative of power. Like an addictive drug, more and more is needed with less and less satisfaction forthcoming. It is not surprising that some form of antithesis is taking shape. Let the sun shine in!
6
Couldn't agree more.
Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy record.
Curatorial procedure and personal believes about Mr.Assange's character do not change that.
With the horrible service the "embedded" main stream media is providing to the public we should all be extremely grateful for his strive for transparency in a world where we the people are more and more kept out of the loop, are being manipulated or lied to, while the rich and connected, the insiders, are lining their offshore bank accounts with money and expect us, the peons, to believe anything they tell us.
But apparently people only like Wikileaks and government transparency when they are leaking information about the other guy/gal.
Wikileaks can only release what it's given and don't blame them for your candidate's dirty laundry.
Hilarious that the Democratic party, completely complicit in the surveillance state, is going to try to paint Wikileaks as a Trump/Russian agent over this. Bit hypocritical, no?
If the press did their jobs properly and politicians and others in power weren't so corrupt, we wouldn't need WikiLeaks so badly.
Also, if governments want to turn their country into a surveillance state by hacking into our emails and phone calls, then they shouldn't complain when the same thing happens to them.
Wikileaks has 4 more weeks of releasing information about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. 5 weeks after the election, we will still be seeing new bombshells dropping regarding her and the DNC.
Buckle up.
Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy record.
Curatorial procedure and personal believes about Mr.Assange's character do not change that.
With the horrible service the "embedded" main stream media is providing to the public we should all be extremely grateful for his strive for transparency in a world where we the people are more and more kept out of the loop, are being manipulated or lied to, while the rich and connected, the insiders, are lining their offshore bank accounts with money and expect us, the peons, to believe anything they tell us.
But apparently people only like Wikileaks and government transparency when they are leaking information about the other guy/gal.
Wikileaks can only release what it's given and don't blame them for your candidate's dirty laundry.
Hilarious that the Democratic party, completely complicit in the surveillance state, is going to try to paint Wikileaks as a Trump/Russian agent over this. Bit hypocritical, no?
If the press did their jobs properly and politicians and others in power weren't so corrupt, we wouldn't need WikiLeaks so badly.
Also, if governments want to turn their country into a surveillance state by hacking into our emails and phone calls, then they shouldn't complain when the same thing happens to them.
Wikileaks has 4 more weeks of releasing information about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. 5 weeks after the election, we will still be seeing new bombshells dropping regarding her and the DNC.
Buckle up.
33
Spot-on analysis as always, Chris.
The NYTimes should offer you a gig at their paper.
The NYTimes should offer you a gig at their paper.
1
extraordinary, and never any bombshells against Trump? Or Putin for that matter? As biased and dirty as Breitbart news.
1
I'm still waiting for the first "bombshell". That Brazile a question to the campaign was about as exciting a bit of news as Wikileaks had to offer. Who knew that politician had opinions and debated strategy? Oh yeah, everyone with a functioning brain. Wikileaks revealed itself to be nothing more than a tool of Putin and the Trump campaign.
1
This is one more valuable thing that the people who benefit would outright reject due to political tribalism. Its scary just how quickly so many individuals will contradict their own interests in the name of seeing their "team" benefit.
I personally, am very thankful for Wikileaks, and more so, for Snowden and men like him who give us ever-so-brief glimpses behind the curtain of our governments. Our entire world is shaped by information we simply don't have. This is why you see politicians campaign on certain platforms, and then instantly abandon those notions as soon as they gain political power and become privy to the true reasons why things are done the way they are.
Too many of us think we have the information needed to judge political decisions and policy, but in truth, outside of leaks, the only time we ever have sufficient information to judge is decades after the fact, when the final FOIA reports start being released.
Outside of the US, its even worse. We are STILL learning new things about world war two from documents only recently released from the former USSRs files. It really drives home how insignificant us little people are to the narrative of histories
I personally, am very thankful for Wikileaks, and more so, for Snowden and men like him who give us ever-so-brief glimpses behind the curtain of our governments. Our entire world is shaped by information we simply don't have. This is why you see politicians campaign on certain platforms, and then instantly abandon those notions as soon as they gain political power and become privy to the true reasons why things are done the way they are.
Too many of us think we have the information needed to judge political decisions and policy, but in truth, outside of leaks, the only time we ever have sufficient information to judge is decades after the fact, when the final FOIA reports start being released.
Outside of the US, its even worse. We are STILL learning new things about world war two from documents only recently released from the former USSRs files. It really drives home how insignificant us little people are to the narrative of histories
14
Those who accuse Wiki Leaks of bias are perhaps ignoring the fact that countess sources of information are biased and intended to influence our opinions and beliefs. Are they giving too much credit to Wiki Leaks regarding the scope of their influence? Is it of any significance that Wiki Leaks steps on a lot of toes?
1
Oh please. Podesta's risotto recipe was corrupt? The Podesta hack revealed internal contretemps, strategy, arguments, and frequently public servants grappling to respond to the needs of their candidate and constituents. It revealed little corruption. The only thing truly corrupt I saw in months of reveal was the Donna Brazile leak of debate questions. The rest was damning by innuendo in a drip drip reveal that worked to actively undermine one party in a contentious election. And Wikileaks, with its breathless 'oh this new one is scandalous,' its obvious collaboration with elements of the Trump campaign, stepped on one side of the scale and corrupted the election.
That's not even getting into whether the documents were received from Russia.
In any case, Wikileaks has lost all moral authority. You are just another corrupt tool in global politics. You serve no one but Assange's ego.
That's not even getting into whether the documents were received from Russia.
In any case, Wikileaks has lost all moral authority. You are just another corrupt tool in global politics. You serve no one but Assange's ego.
108
From my point of view, learning of Donna Brazile's contemptible behavior alone justified the whole leak. Why isn't she fired yet?
3
Yes there is a need for a service that publishes information and keeps our political masters accountable. But the challenge over the past few months has been that Wikileaks has either chosen to be, or has been, used explicitly by state actors for a specific political goal. As such it's no longer a credible leak site but rather a site that is beholden and linked to certain states for specific political goals. What is needed is Wikileaks 2 who care actually about transparency and don't have their own agenda to push.
23
Simply because the words shadowing true ideals are repeated, doesn't make it true. Actions are far more accurate. There were very strong opinions about Hilary via Twitter, then there was the frequency. It's convenient to claim there was no submissions on Trump. Who is going to argue otherwise? It's not like we can see what is being submitted. I read the reddit AMA feed and found nothing considered"abusive". People have a right to be critical without the labels. It's not abusive to ask if WikiLeaks would follow through with their "publish everything" policy on nuclear weapon access codes. If WikiLeaks wasn't political, then why is there a WikiLeaks political party? Why publish before the election? It's absurd not to expect people to hold WikiLeaks responsible for ushering in a fascist dictator to one of the most powerful countries in the world. It's reckless. Pretty lies cannot change fact.
19
Months ago Assange declared he would do everything he could to see that Hillary Clinton was not elected. WikiLeaks aided and abetted him in this. The daily 'leaks' of Clinton emails was part of his announced October strategy - every day a new 'trove' came tumbling out - just as he had promised. It kept the issue of Hillary's emails in the public eye right on through to the election itself. Under the guise of revealing secret information WikiLeaks sided with nationalist/racist populism. The self-serving account offered here does the same.
406
We'd see Wikileaks as committed to truth and transparency if information from all parties (in the US) was put forth. Julian Assange seemed determined to "take down" the Democratic Party in this election cycle. That doesn't help us to see Wikileaks as impartial and simply sharing information. Note too, I kept thinking -- Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy --- why? Because he doesn't want to face sexual assault charges. And who does he seem to be aiding in this election? A sexual predator. Hard to trust Wikileaks now.
347
Well, I guess if the Democratic party had played by its own rules -- you know, neutrality towards candidates -- they couldn't have been "taken down."
1
When Wikileaks provides a credible explanation why only documents from the Clinton campaign and the DNA were leaked, and why nothing from the RNC or the Trump campaign was leaked, I might be able to take this op-ed piece seriously. The close ties between Wikileaks and Putin are not in question.
The reality is that while Wikileaks started out with a noble goal, under the leadership of the sociopathic accused rapist Julian Assange it has become as corrupt and poisonous as the very institutions it claims to be bringing into the light. Assange's desperate need for the limelight pales in comparison to Trump's, which says pretty much everything you need to know about the man and his organization. A petty, score-settling criminal enterprise (yes, those documents are stolen) determined to remain in the public eye no matter the cost to the globe.
The reality is that while Wikileaks started out with a noble goal, under the leadership of the sociopathic accused rapist Julian Assange it has become as corrupt and poisonous as the very institutions it claims to be bringing into the light. Assange's desperate need for the limelight pales in comparison to Trump's, which says pretty much everything you need to know about the man and his organization. A petty, score-settling criminal enterprise (yes, those documents are stolen) determined to remain in the public eye no matter the cost to the globe.
307
spot on.
2
May I quibble over one detail? You called Assange sociopathic. Well, we've heard a lot about narcissism in the run-up to the election, and what seems clear to me is that Assange, Trump and Putin are all narcissists on the world stage: they can't take criticism, everything is always someone else's fault, they're incapable of experiencing remorse, they seek flattery, and they have lofty opinions of themselves. I think maybe narcissists simply approve of, or at the very least feel some kinship with, fellow narcissists.
3
Mr Assange is known to be committed to keeping Hillary Clinton out of the US presidency and to have used all of the facility at his disposal to release information in a manner so as to do the maximum damage to her candidacy. You have undoubtedly signed the non disclosure agreement mandated by Mr Assange for people who work for him. The illegally hacked information stolen by the Russian government could have been disseminated in one big dump. But it was curated and released piece meal to inflict the maximum damage to the Clinton candidacy. I have learned a thing or two about Karma. I hope that Mr Assange gets what he justly deserves.
325
While I believe in transparency, WikiLeaks was (in this election) anything but. If there were real transparency (with no agenda connected to Russia and their fear of the Obama Administration) surely they would have released information and e-mails from the RNC -- I'm sure that would have been enlightening and scary and something Americans would have loved to see. Ms. Harrison and Mr. Assange should get off their high horse/s -- they are doing nothing to further transparency in the world. The only silver lining here might be that a President-elect Trump is likely to crack down on them in ways they could never have imagined since no-one in that world seems to even know how to spell transparency, never mind practice it.
309
So how then did Wikileaks function only to trash Hillary, and allow Trump the big pass. Until your organization decides to mainstream, which very much is "interested in who the sources are" the raw data can be, and was obviously influential in interference of our recent US election. Good luck in trashing the man you helped become the President of the most powerful nation in the world. With President Obama or Hillary, they play by the rules. Julian Assange has 3 months left in the relative freedom of being self incarcerated in the Ecuadorian Embassy before the rules start to change.
Already now Mr. Assange has been cut off from the internet. There are ways around that, just as there are ways to pop Mr. Assange away from the Embassy. Getting WikiLeaks into the political affairs of the US is one of the worst moves, impossible to plan to be this stupid. Thus is a good time to jettison Assange and try reorganizing into something more, like a real news organization.
Already now Mr. Assange has been cut off from the internet. There are ways around that, just as there are ways to pop Mr. Assange away from the Embassy. Getting WikiLeaks into the political affairs of the US is one of the worst moves, impossible to plan to be this stupid. Thus is a good time to jettison Assange and try reorganizing into something more, like a real news organization.
235
A few thoughts.
1. Transparency is usually overrated. Unless people are willing to spend the time to fully understand context, and opposing points of view, WikiLeaks is basically a political weapon which has little value to the political process arriving at good decisions.
2. WikiLeaks if played by the Russian government to gain a propaganda advantage. This would not matter if people understood what is going on, but unfortunately most don't.
3. WikiLeaks does nothing to make the world a better place. The fact that they contributed directly to Trump's election is evidence of this.
4. Julian Assange should go to Sweden and stand trial. What is he afraid of?
1. Transparency is usually overrated. Unless people are willing to spend the time to fully understand context, and opposing points of view, WikiLeaks is basically a political weapon which has little value to the political process arriving at good decisions.
2. WikiLeaks if played by the Russian government to gain a propaganda advantage. This would not matter if people understood what is going on, but unfortunately most don't.
3. WikiLeaks does nothing to make the world a better place. The fact that they contributed directly to Trump's election is evidence of this.
4. Julian Assange should go to Sweden and stand trial. What is he afraid of?
465
No the world does not need another stooge for the Russian government. Is this woman seriously telling us she and Assange didn't know where all illegally hacked material came from?
168
WIKI leaks looks like a white supremacy tool to me. Assange is pretty and the Russians are pretty white.
103
Could someone explain to me why the governed should not know what those who govern are doing. Why the Panama Papers should be withheld. Why we should not know what the DNC is doing. What the RNC is covering up. What candidates are saying in private.
4
What poor logic and mirror image FOX thinking. DO you have even one piece of evidence Assange is a white Supremacist?? Or that Wikileaks lies when Hillary was forced to fire her election cheating Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Are you sad the world knows the truth about the bad things we do or do you like other 'authoritarians' feel the truth is dangerous and must be suppressed with whistle blowers and truth tellers being the threat while our biased media propaganda is the way to go??
The irony is so bitter as it is Putin who is supposed to think this way and yet here you are. Trump only won because of the MSM who built him up as they ignored and marginalized Sanders to get 'the Queen' crowned as planned by the DNC years before the election and whose supporters feel that the DNC OWN the election as some private concern; they get to have privacy while plotting while we citizens, post 911 have 'no right to privacy in a post 911 world'.
Your utterly incredible reality denial, contempt for the truth and support for lying oligarchy is your bag. Trump is your fault and all those who excuse cheating in elections and despise the right of the people to choose based on facts not media propaganda! Ecuador is not seen as a very 'white nation' by real racists btw!
Are you sad the world knows the truth about the bad things we do or do you like other 'authoritarians' feel the truth is dangerous and must be suppressed with whistle blowers and truth tellers being the threat while our biased media propaganda is the way to go??
The irony is so bitter as it is Putin who is supposed to think this way and yet here you are. Trump only won because of the MSM who built him up as they ignored and marginalized Sanders to get 'the Queen' crowned as planned by the DNC years before the election and whose supporters feel that the DNC OWN the election as some private concern; they get to have privacy while plotting while we citizens, post 911 have 'no right to privacy in a post 911 world'.
Your utterly incredible reality denial, contempt for the truth and support for lying oligarchy is your bag. Trump is your fault and all those who excuse cheating in elections and despise the right of the people to choose based on facts not media propaganda! Ecuador is not seen as a very 'white nation' by real racists btw!
2