WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs': 'I Enjoy Crushing Bastards'

Published on Monday, July 26, 2010 by Spiegel Online(Germany)
WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs': 'I Enjoy Crushing Bastards'

In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him.

SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?

Assange: These files http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.

SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?

Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.

SPIEGEL: Aren't you expecting a little too much?

Assange: There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner.

SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren't you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?

Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm minimization process, and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.

SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?

Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.

SPIEGEL: Is there anything that you consider to be a legitimate state secret?

Assange: There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not WikiLeaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied.

SPIEGEL: But in the end somebody has to decide whether you publish or not. Who determines the criteria? WikiLeaks considers itself to be a trailblazer when it comes to freedom of information, but it lacks transparency in its own publishing decisions.

Assange: This is ridiculous. We are clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have ad-hoc editorial decisions. We always release the full primary sources to our articles. What other press organization has such exacting standards? Everyone should try to follow our lead.

SPIEGEL: The problem is that it is difficult to hold WikiLeaks accountable. You operate your servers in countries that offer you broad protection. Does WikiLeaks consider itself to be above the law?

Assange: WikiLeaks does not exist in outer space. We are people who exist on Earth, in particular nations, each of which have a particular set of laws. We have been legally challenged in various countries. We have won every challenge. It is courts that decide the law, not corporations or generals. The law, as expressed by constitutions and courts, has been on our side.

SPIEGEL: You have said that there is a correlation between the transparency for which you are fighting and a just society. What do you mean by that?

Assange: Reform can only come about when injustice is exposed. To oppose an unjust plan before it reaches implementation is to stop injustice.

SPIEGEL: During the Vietnam War, US President Richard Nixon once called Daniel Elsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, the most dangerous man in America. Are you today's most dangerous man or the most endangered?

Assange: The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it.

SPIEGEL: You could have started a company in Silicon Valley and lived in a home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool. Why did you decide to do the WikiLeaks project instead?

Assange: We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have, and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.

MORE:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/26-0

..................

MORE:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/54231
xlnt democracynow video

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/26/887737/-The-Duty-to-Leak
"The Duty To Leak"
by Jesselyn Radack

for a while............

And I hope he doesn't own any firearms that he has to periodically clean which can lead to "accidental" accidents.

Even if you don't agree with his methods, you can at least appreciate that he did what he did for the good of mankind. Not "good" in some sort of dogmatic context, but "good" as in helping mankind to live with greater happiness and understanding.

The world is far from perfect though.
I would seriously consider him for the awards.

And it will be fascinating to watch how
This unfolds.

Thank you Mr Assange.

Welcome to warfare in the 21st Century.

It's a pretty big news event.

"...those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy"

That's for damn sure.

this "unnamed" interviewer for Speigel seemed combative in his questioning, like he would have liked to crush Assange. I know its hard to catch body language and nuance in the written word, but the interviewer's questions come off as accusatory rather than merely inquisitive.

Assange handled this interview every bit as well as he handles his subject matter and I say, Go Julian.

He apparently considers NATO the bastards and not the Taliban/al Qaeda despots. I vote to put him in prison.

...if you're so eager to kill poor people on the other side of the world? I'm sure there's a branch of the military or a mercenary contractor who would be happy to give you the chance.

In the meantime, Julian Assange is a REAL American hero, IMO.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"He apparently considers NATO the bastards and not the Taliban/al Qaeda despots..."

How does consideration of one as such deny consideration of the other as such?

Also, what is the precise information being leaked that will result in "a bunch of NATO troops killed?"

This is only news to us American ostriches. I'm sure friends and family members of the civilians we're mowing down over there, you know, NOTICE when their loved ones are killed.

The little sunlight Wikileaks is shedding on these events is not what's putting our troops in danger. What's putting them in danger is our continued and reckless occupation of a foreign country.

Our government classifies a hell of a lot, most of it to avoid embarrassment.

And even IF only a small percent should be classified, it's a small percent of 90,000

you know, the guy who is actually responsible for getting a bunch of NATO troops killed. mkay, asscrack?

killed and I would call that treason!

And those covering up these crimes..complicit in treason! AND MURDER..and war criminals!

This is a war of lies..this is war crimes and crimes against humanity..and this is treason.

asscrack.

RL

Your opening salvo is straight of "you're either with us or the terrorists" and requires no refutation from any progressive with an ounce of sanity. But to address your current confabulation:


Review of WikiLeaks docs sees no smoking gun
Pentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security

WASHINGTON, D.C. — An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

Add me to your ignore list too, you ignorant asscrack.

You know they can pack much more talking points if they are so inclined. I don't think my computer could handle such level of intellectual dishonesty in such concentration.

I'm curious to see if I can elicit a response with the word 'Islamofascist' in it. ;)

I am running some simulation right now, you want my mac to crash! ;-)

Islamofascist, Obama bin Laden loving, left wing panty-waist... How dare you try to refudiate the right!!!

Isn't this something? I think this particular chapter of foreign policy darkness has its origins in BCCI. Another "enemy" we created to maximize profits for the Military Industrial Complex. In a sane world, that evil Machiavellian machine would be everyone's focus. But no, it's wikileaks that might get someone killed! :eyes:

The people in marble offices who send men and women to fight unwinnable are the ones getting them killed.

Who is killing Afghan civilians, by the thousands it seems? Who sent the troops to a useless war based on lies?

You have a very skewed view of who is responsible for putting people in danger.

Who was responsible for the death of Pat Tillman? Who lied this country into two wars, or did really believe that Afghanistan was 'the good war'?

My only regret is that these documents weren't available several years ago as many, many lives might have been saved. Hopefully now those pretending that we are fighting noble wars will no longer be able to lie about them.

We need a Wikileaks, Real Press, in every country in the world to keep corrupt governments in line.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

So....who cares if a hundred Afghan informants will be tortured and killed by the Taliban. I guess that they were the wrong kind of "innocents".

The lies the government tells us only serves to make sure the gullible continue to support this monstrosity. So easy for you to talk about supporting the troops from the safety of your keyboard isn't it. If you think this war is so great take your ass out there and fight it.

I shan't hold my breath about that happening.

it's actually your twisted view that is more harmful than exposing the truth.

Tell ya what Moon, come on out to the front line with old Deacon.

We got a fence that needs fixin'

......and posts things so he is not subject to U.S. laws. Good work.....but not exactly the stuff of heroes.

about it?

It's ludicrous to suggest Assange should be put in prison.

very nice.

I kept you off ignore because I got a kick out of your crazy ravings.

Not anymore. eat ignore.

of course he is! He's a Paratrooper hero!

Everyone already knows civians die in war and have been dying in Afghanistan, many of which are being killed by the Taliban. Saying we're "finally" talking about it is disingenuous. It is and has always been a major talking point.

You don't need 90,000 pages of leaked documents to tell you that.

if you were around when the Pentagon papers were published.

Fuck DLC!

Why don't YOU voluntarily enter a prison to show your support for the warmongers and profit takers of the "civilized" world.

the bastards who fund the very enemy that kills our soldiers and those of NATO..or the MTF'ers who fund the very people you say are the bastards..the Taliban /A Queada?

Since we are funding those you say are the bastards..what does that make those in our government??????????

I would say Traitors!! And Murderers..and war criminals..

to express an unpopular opinion where he will likely be attacked, as you and others have proven. And I happen to agree with him. It is possible for well intentioned, rational people to simply disagree with you.

He might suffer from that for......minutes. Please. He did what he did knowing there would be no serious consequences. It's not like he was some black civil rights activist being shot, beaten, or imprisoned. I can appreciate that he has made some powerful people uncomfortable......albeit briefly.....but don't suggest that he is Medgar Evers.

nothing like defending a democracy is there? People do it without guns too...

I think if the population of the world were allowed to vote on who goes to prison, the majority of leaders and members of government to every NATO country would have been in that prison for decades.

Apparently you also missed his point... try re-reading it.

eom

I fail to see how sitting at a computer screen in Nevada and killing people on the other side of the world, courtesy of our CiC, has anything to do with "peace".

;-)

The Nobel Peace price has always been nothing but a masturbatory exercise by the elites trying to justify their hubris. Hell, even that piece of shit Kissinger has one.


Logical dissonance, and runaway hypocritical doublethink are not things exclusive to the USA it seems.

:thumbsup:

then i saw two..thought i had a problem..yep my house needs cleaned but ants on my monitor?..lol

Yep, I've been fooled too.

I wish we had a dozen more REAL journalists as dedicated as he is.

Did he confirm that all 90,000 documents were real?? Did he ask for comments from opposing views?? Did he interview people to obtain context?? Did he request the thoughts of people sending the emails, to challenge their thoughts?? Has he followed up on the information to see what the Bush or Obama administrations have to say about the information??

He received documents and published them.....that's it. Good work....maybe. Necessary.....maybe, but to what end.....the story does not appear to have legs. Journalism.....Absolutely NOT.

he knows how many people consider him a hero for standing up to the bastards who are destroying our country and killing our children.

Obama & Co. can pound salt, for all I care, with their phony outrage. :grr:

Was just watching Cenk host for Dylan. He has on Glen Greenwald and asked him if Wikileaks should be the route of whistleblowers as opposed to the MSM. As Glen was referencing the 2004 NYT holding their story for over a year, the clip froze and stuttered past mentioning the actual charge of Bush's domestic spying. What a coincidence!
What you think Cenk?

crushing bastards...what a great life's work!

squirm like the miserable nasty bugs they are!

remarkable and refreshing are two very good words..I wish him peace and long life

NEVER a good thing

Projection, maybe?

And what "power" does he have exactly?

take your meds, please

If you think simple questions are a sign of mental health issues, the world must be a scary place. It explains your virulent behavior though.

Cheers.

The problem I have he doesn't seem to regard US and other NATO forces as "innocent." I can care less about that fact alone, but how much consideration does he give to to a "reasonable" chance of harm to our troops who are over there? Something tells me that's a last priority.

Another issue is how does he determine what possible harm a particular document or video can have on the people involved? Does he have anyone on his staff with the experience to make that determination? Does he have former counterintelligence agents on his staff, or does he just wing it?

Think I'm being ridiculous? Let me give you just ONE example of what military minded people can decipher. You all remember the helicopter video where the two reporters got killed, right? OK.

Do you remember when they began firing their chain gun there was a delay between the gun being fired and the rounds hitting the target? That's called "flash to bang." (technically it refers the time between the muzzle flash and when you hear the shot, but it will work in reverse) A quick Google search and you will quickly learn that from a M230 chain gun the 30mm rounds travel at 2,641 feet per second. Get an accurate measurement of time between the shots were fired and when the rounds impacted... and Ding! They now know how far away the Apache's were and how well they can be seen from that distance.

Is this the end of the world? No, but it does show how the tiniest bit of information can give you a wealth of other information.

I was listening to NPR on my way home from work and I learned a couple of things about Wikileaks. First of all, that they did redact some information and I was glad to hear that. They specifically said they redacted information on informants, which I specifically mentioned was one of my main concerns. I also learned that the bulk of the documents is unfiltered raw intelligence. I put that in bold because this is extremely important to note. The intel guys have to sift through all kinds of crap before they can finally surmise something credible. In other words they probably get more bullshit information than they get anything actionable or useful. It's their job to sift through the crap, determine who is credible and who is not, cross check and verify information, etc. and finally write a detailed analysis about what their opinion is of the truth. NPR said they hired an "expert" to examine some of the documents and he said it was very difficult to determine what was credible and what was not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Wikileaks story is big news-- full of shocking truths we have tried to minimize all along. So here in the USA, after the waterfall of facts and details, the PR teams are in overdrive at being sanguine. Aw, we knew that. It's old news. President O's new approach will change things.

I'd imagine that gaming a Pentagon Papers scenario is part of every political PR firm's training.

They've learned well.

I very much wish that this exposure would serve as a wake-up call, just as I wish the BP disaster was a major wake-up call on what reckless bullies the giant oil multinationals have become.

:kick:

that SOMEONE takes this SERIOUSLY enough to DO SOMETHING!!!

But That HOPEY thing left the building a long time ago I FEAR!

:nuke:

Isn't that what we all pray for? Anything we can do to make things better has got to be a good thing.

But, we still have thousands of people in the region (including allies and NATO personnel) and to release this kind of information will put people in danger. If nothing else, it gives the enemy a pattern of the inner workings of our military.