I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.

My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 11:40pm PST - promote requested by RedSky.

>> ^RedSky:
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions.

I'm really sick of that argument.

If that's the litmus test, then lets just line up and shoot all the militaries/governments/police forces of the world, because not only can't they guarantee that, they have a track record of actually killing people.

Nothing is risk free, people die of food born illnesses all the time, doesn't mean all restaurant owners should go to jail.

If Democracy is good, and an informed populous is good for Democracy, then Wikileaks is good, full stop

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by radx.

^ I 100% agree with dgandhi.

Nice interview. Great to hear more than sound bites.

I do agree with what you said, and I'm not suggesting that military and police forces are not forced to take comparable or greater risks while still providing benefit.

The fact still remains though that he's disingenuous in professing that he is able to wholly remove the harm from the information he releases. He doesn't explicitly say it in this video but I have heard him say it in the past.

I understand that there's an important PR angle and the fact that everything in the public eye is taken at face value does not allow him to say anything more nuanced than that. I just find it quite jarring compared to his otherwise brutal honesty.>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^RedSky:
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions.
I'm really sick of that argument.
If that's the litmus test, then lets just line up and shoot all the militaries/governments/police forces of the world, because not only can't they guarantee that, they have a track record of actually killing people.
Nothing is risk free, people die of food born illnesses all the time, doesn't mean all restaurant owners should go to jail.
If Democracy is good, and an informed populous is good for Democracy, then Wikileaks is good, full stop

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

"Incitement to commit murder"

Is there a lawyer with some balls that can drag Sarah Palin et al in court for that?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He nailed it for sure.

@gwiz665

Someone asked Glenn Greenwald that question today.

Q: Glenn, as a lawyer: is there a legal statute in the US code that someone who is inciting murder ... could be indicted for? Could anybody file those charges?

A: I'd be against that for the same reason I'm against the Government's efforts to criminalize Anwar al-Awlaki's sermons: the Constitution protects free speech, including -- as the Supreme Court has held -- the abstract advocacy of violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio): link.

That makes sense. Still, being a government official, calling out that someone should illegally assassinate a person needs some repercussions.
>> ^radx:

@gwiz665
Someone asked Glenn Greenwald that question today.

Q: Glenn, as a lawyer: is there a legal statute in the US code that someone who is inciting murder ... could be indicted for? Could anybody file those charges?
A: I'd be against that for the same reason I'm against the Government's efforts to criminalize Anwar al-Awlaki's sermons: the Constitution protects free speech, including -- as the Supreme Court has held -- the abstract advocacy of violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio): link.

^That's where we, the people, come in. We need to make sure that Sarah Palin NEVER gets... oh wait, funny commercial on TV... what was I talking about again?

>> ^RedSky:

I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.
promote


"An interview is a conversation between two people (the interviewer and the interviewee) where questions are asked by the interviewer to obtain information from the interviewee."

He doesnt know the breath and extent? sure. But NOW, I can give so a shit ton of empirical fucking evidence, including footage of children getting shot up with a mother fucking 30mm cannon by chuckling apache pilots, of the REAL and KNOWN costs of the lies...Mate.

TL;DR? You sir, are a silly billy.

>> ^RedSky:
The fact still remains though that he's disingenuous in professing that he is able to wholly remove the harm from the information he releases. He doesn't explicitly say it in this video but I have heard him say it in the past.


Im definately going to need sources for this.

A great term to explain all this. Digital McCarthyism.

Having actually read some of the wikileak cables, I've noticed that there are redactions on the more sensitive documents. I've not seen one that could get someone killed so far. I'm guessing there are probably cables that Assange would not reveal.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Having actually read some of the wikileak cables, I've noticed that there are redactions on the more sensitive documents. I've not seen one that could get someone killed so far. I'm guessing there are probably cables that Assange would not reveal.


My understanding is that they actively worked with the press to decide which things to redact and which to reveal.

We can haggle about the exact definition, but I see a good interview as something that confronts someone's views from a critical view and reveals opinions previously undisclosed, or elucidated a view more precisely. What I saw there and in fact in many MSNBC inteviews and segments where they have sympathetic guests on is than Cenk basically let Julian talk at length, often dwelving into topics far removed from the initial question. Like I said, that's not necessarily bad, but by my definition, that doesn't make a good interview. The interview that Frost did for example, was far superior to this.

I never made overall positive or negative judgement about what he does. For the record I tentatively agree that his releases do good, but that doesn't change the fact that with the breadth or extent of information he releases, he has the very real possibility of causing harm to someone unintentionally - even with the most studious, judicious and well intentioned care taken by him and his team.>> ^Raaagh:

>> ^RedSky:
I wouldn't really call this an interview, more of an rebuttal opinion piece, but I think it's well worth listening to anyway.
My main problem really is that he has no way to guarantee no one is harmed as a result of his actions. His staff simply cannot have the breadth of knowledge and foresight to definitively know whether releasing a portion of information may implicitly implicate an innocent person and put them at risk.
promote

"An interview is a conversation between two people (the interviewer and the interviewee) where questions are asked by the interviewer to obtain information from the interviewee."
He doesnt know the breath and extent? sure. But NOW, I can give so a shit ton of empirical fucking evidence, including footage of children getting shot up with a mother fucking 30mm cannon by chuckling apache pilots, of the REAL and KNOWN costs of the lies...Mate.
TL;DR? You sir, are a silly billy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBTtA

3:50-6:00, particularly the end.>> ^Raaagh:

>> ^RedSky:
The fact still remains though that he's disingenuous in professing that he is able to wholly remove the harm from the information he releases. He doesn't explicitly say it in this video but I have heard him say it in the past.

Im definately going to need sources for this.

Cenk explained at the start of the TYT show that day (after his interview with Assange) why he did the interview the way he did. See below:

^ That was a GREAT watch.

I *fear the "rule of *law" has been seriously crippled for quite a few years now.

Adding video to channels (Fear, Law) - requested by xxovercastxx.

>> ^BoneyD:

Cenk explained at the start of the TYT show that day (after his interview with Assange) why he did the interview the way he did. See below:

Cenk is depressing; he reminds me just how beyond fucked the U.S. already is.

@RedSky - Well said.

Since Cenk talks a fair bit about the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning in the above TYT video, I'm going to touch on that briefly. To start, he is being held in a military prison and has had military charges brought against him. Having signed on the dotted line when he entered the service, he is subject to the military code of conduct and the entire judicial process of that system. It would take an inordinate amount of government pressure to have his living conditions changed. Seeing as how Obama doesn't exactly approve of his actions, this is not going to happen. Liberal human rights groups can complain all they want, but I guarantee you not a damn thing will change before his pretrial hearing. From a legal standpoint, the military's actions thus far fall well within the breadth of the law. Whether or not these actions are justifiable from an ethical standpoint is debatable, but I wouldn't waste your breath. Strong moral values and military doctrine are mutually exclusive.