New Troubles For WikiLeaks Founder Assange

Easily, it seems.
Wikileaks has released almost 400,000 secret US military records
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319

Probably a good idea to take what ever Mr Assange initially said, for what ever reason, as a bunch of lies...or variations on the truth, if you prefer.

OP: "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has denied reports that his website is about to leak a huge number of US documents on Iraq."

 

One newspaper editor said he redacted and published a half dozen or so; after he conferred with the Pentagon, and was not threatened or intimidated. The editors of the papers that published some of the first documents reported the same. Seems Mr. Assange is the only one claiming government harassment.

.

 

Yeah, none of that rang true, really. Not for me, anyway.

 

Do you really think it's proper to spread propaganda based on your GUESSES? When news is slow we fill in the blanks with speculation? Do you realize that all of this amateur hour analysis is why people know very little facts about the world today.

As for him walking out on CNN, He is the one who missed an opportunity to address the speculation about his own character. A couple more of those tantrums and he'll disappear from the news.

And, btw, I still haven't heard anything new that hasn't been reported by the mainstream media over the past years.

.

 

I just hope being a 'new' hippie, doesn't mean you have to have a 'I hate America' type of attitude....

 

Patriotism can be expresses in many ways. Opposition does not denote that one hates his country.

.

 

Imho, "wikileaks" opens itself up to criticism when it denies it will release 391,832 reports, then releases 391,832 reports days later.
"wikileaks" can deny they had said anything about an imminent release of reports, but it isn't the same thing as denying it had the the reports in the first place.
It's basic semantics on it's part if that is what it said and not your speculation.
If Julian or "wikileaks" stated ten weeks ago that he/it had 391,832 reports on the Iraq war, but said: "Sorry folks, we have all these reports but we are unable to release them because of funding issues," then fine, no criticism is needed.
But, to the best of my knowledge - and feel free to correct me - it said absolutely nothing about having these reports.
If "wikileaks" stated it had a partner (another media outlet) and was waiting for the documents to be redacted, then no criticism could be aimed at Julian or "wikileaks"...but he/it didn't.
It (and he) also would not be under criticism if it (or he) released all of the correspondence/details regarding "cyber attacks" it received instead of just saying it was the "US government".
Both Julian and "wikileaks" just don't seem to be as open about themselves or the situation as they seem to be about reports after they have been released.
Is it so boring to say that they needed 600,000 dollars to cover their operating costs but simply didn't have the funds, or that the site was down until it could redact the reports and didn't want to be online until then?
Instead claiming its funding receivership mechanisms were not in place because of shadowy figures trying to stop them from having a process to receive money.
How do we know any of that is true if it does not release any corroborative reports/emails showing this is true.
Instead making unsubstantiated claims.
It isn't wrong to admit that it (wikileaks) and he wanted an exclusive, and "wikileaks" wanted nobody to know it had these reports, and wanted the release date to be kept a secret.
These types of issues seem to be why Daniel Domscheit-Berg walked from the project.
Reading between the lines - and again feel free to correct me with documented accounts - Daniel Domscheit-Berg thought "wikileaks" was basically reducing itself to a single issue protest site and not an outlet for whistle-blowers.
Basically getting way to big for its boots, and moving away from what it set out to do.
It's a shame that the story is about the person rather than the reports, but I do think it is Julian's fault that is the case.
I hope we can swiftly move away from discussing him and "wikileaks" and discuss the reports themselves.