actually spent some time looking at his channel, and the title and description are copied character for character from his channel.

His channel is a collection of arty comedy pieces from a couple years ago, now he's doing hit pieces on Julian Assange... hit pieces with a gauze of "parody"

Probably some dope who thinks he's on the leading edge of humor, but its not because your videos are bad, it's bgecause you didn't read rules
*ban

>> ^mgittle:

>> ^MaxWilder:
What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.

They are different things. There is a legal difference. If you leak classified documents in the US, that is a punishable offense because you probably signed some contract saying you wouldn't leak things in order to be able to get a classified clearance of some kind. If you report to others information that has been leaked by a whistleblower, that falls under freedom of the press and is not punishable by law.
That's why the US gov't is trying to hard to find evidence that Julian Assange coerced Bradley Manning into leaking classified information...to connect Assange to a crime. You say "Wikileaks just gives whistleblowers a platform"...yeah, so do all sorts of news organizations. Trade any news source with "Wikileaks"...try your sentence out with "New York Times", for example.
Don't ask a rhetorical question when you don't already know the answer.


Sorry, I didn't make my baffled outburst clear. The assholes claiming that WikiLeaks is a bad thing both support whistle blowers as a necessary measure when all normal channels to right a wrong have been attempted.

Is it not patently obvious to anybody that WikiLeaks is the worlds biggest supporter of whistle blowers? Is it not further patently obvious that shutting down WikiLeaks would make it harder for whistle blowers to get the attention they need? Therefor how could any sane person support one and not the other? (Rhetorical question. Answer: they can't. They are hypocrites and liars.)

Edit: I hasten to add that I have no problem with an open investigation to confirm that Assange was not colluding with those who are breaking the law in gathering the information. That is something that could happen to any news organization, and is fairly reasonable when the release is as significant as those diplomatic cables. But the public harassment is absurd.

>> ^MaxWilder:

What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.


They are different things. There is a legal difference. If you leak classified documents in the US, that is a punishable offense because you probably signed some contract saying you wouldn't leak things in order to be able to get a classified clearance of some kind. If you report to others information that has been leaked by a whistleblower, that falls under freedom of the press and is not punishable by law.

That's why the US gov't is trying to hard to find evidence that Julian Assange coerced Bradley Manning into leaking classified information...to connect Assange to a crime. You say "Wikileaks just gives whistleblowers a platform"...yeah, so do all sorts of news organizations. Trade any news source with "Wikileaks"...try your sentence out with "New York Times", for example.

Don't ask a rhetorical question when you don't already know the answer.

Nobody said you have to be ashamed of your country. You just have to respect the Constitution, which gives certain rights if you are awaiting trial or not, and most of those rights don't go away if you are guilty, the privileges yes, the rights no. How is asking him to be treated with the respect the Constitution demands being unpatriotic? If anything, it is the very definition of patriotic, sticking up for the Constitution even when others think it should be ignored. All people are asking for here is that the government be transparent about their treatment of him to be sure his rights granted by the Constitution and International law are being protected.
It is those here who call for Julian Assange to be sent here for trail that could be called unpatriotic. He did the job the media is supposed to do, and is the very reason the freedom of the press clause exists in the 1st Amendment: to act as a check and balance against government corruption and violation of international laws and treaties.
And when the public knows about such treatment in other countries, then people here complain as well. Perhaps not the people you listen to, or the major media outlets, but the Real News, Democracy Now and other independent non-corporate, pro-humanitarian media do.
If he is guilty then yes, he should spend his life in jail, nobody would argue that, but he should be treated humanely with his full Constitutional and International rights before and after said convection.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, human rights' to 'Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, human rights, dennis kucinich' - edited by blankfist

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

How on earth can the New York Times call WikiLeaks a source? Shouldn't they know better than anyone what that term means? It's just laughable that they would pretend not to understand the distinction between sources, journalists and publishers. And all too obviously a nod to the Justice Department, declaring publicly that the NYT supports prosecution of Julian Assange.

There are three books on the market that can shed some light on what happened behind the curtains between Assange/WikiLeaks and Guardian/NYT/Spiegel primarily on the other side.


a) "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" (Guardian)
b) "Open Secrets: Wikileaks, War and American Diplomacy" (New York Times)
c) "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks"/"WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" (Der Spiegel)

Excerpts of each one have been made available at the corresponding pages. Whether the truth can be found within one of these books, I highly doubt it. But at least "WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" was an interesting read.

>> ^Payback:

omg... Isn't this guy's 15 minutes months of fame over yet?


Yeah, that's how I feel. Yes, Wikileaks had a hand in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts, but now that these events have become so sweepingly real, the drama surrounding this man (and his ego/image) seems so insignificant. Hopefully, this will work to his favor. I still hope he makes it through okay. If only because I think he has done and hopefully will continue to do his best work behind the scenes.

@bmacs27

WikiLeaks' response can be found here, but if we take into account this excerpt from "WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1" published by folks from "Der Spiegel" as well as the latest excerpts from David Leigh's book published by the Guardian, it appears to have turned into one big pissing contest between Bill Keller, David Leigh and Julian Assange.

So far, I have read neither "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" (Guardian) nor "Open Secrets: Wikileaks, War and American Diplomacy" (New York Times), just "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks" (Der Spiegel). But comments and op-eds at "Der Spiegel" and "Le Monde" differ quite significantly from those at the NYT in particular.

On a different note, how about these two tweets by David House, Bradley Manning's only allowed visitor, together with Jane Hamsher:

Visited Bradley this weekend; his conditions are still intolerable, but we talked at length about Egypt & Tunisia.

Bradley is in a shocked state due to solitary confinement, but his mood and mind soared when I mentioned the democratic uprisings in Egypt.

Your video, 60 Minutes Interview with Julian Assange, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I agree. I also watched this last night on 60 minutes. I do not see why the press is not more sympathetic with his cause.

I for one can not see Asange being in trouble for his actions. The "Pentagon pagers" event from the early 70s is the same thing. that ended up at the Supreme court.

From Wikipedia

"On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[16]"
>> ^JiggaJonson:

Edited or not, I watched this last night and thought that Assange carried himself well and had keen, honest responses to each question he was asked. I for one appreciate that there is a venue for those who want to speak out against abuses in organizations who would otherwise not be policed at all.

>> ^RedSky:

Judging by how detailed most of his answers usually are on live TV interviews, I have no doubt that this was heavily edited.


Everything's edited, but according to this, the actual interview lasted 6 hours.

Maybe someday we'll get to see all 6 hours released by Wikileaks.

>> ^kymbos:

I think we can all agree that, whatever the significance of Wikileaks, or Julian Assange's character, these issues pale in significance against quirks of the English language that upset pedants.


I hate it when people say "i-SS-ue" instead of "i-SH-ue"...

Just shayin'

>> ^kymbos:
I think we can all agree that, whatever the significance of Wikileaks, or Julian Assange's character, these issues pale in significance against quirks of the English language that upset pedants.


Q.F.T.