Guardian piece against Wikileaks
Sep. 3rd, 2011 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bemused_leftistImo the Guardian article at ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/why-i-had-to-leave-wikileaks is a shallow hit piece.
Sure, this cultish organiztion is going to let someone join "for a three-month stint" and immediately put him at the table with the founders to discuss a sensitive issue.
This doesn't even make sense. They wanted to release every one of the cables; the writer wanted some names blacked out (as names had been blacked out, ie "redacted", in the first cables released. That's not a real conflict, that's a misunderstanding.
So how much did the videos bring in in donations, and were they defending Wikileaks against the actions that PayPal, BOA, etc were taking against them? That's not an unreasonable decision. This was also a time when PayPal and others were freezing Wikileaks' and Assange's funds and donations.
Does anyone think Assange would have been charged with "personal" misconduct and had an international Interpol red alert warrant issued on him -- if not because of Wikileaks? Allinsky: isolate an individual, attack him personally -- to make it difficult for the organization to officially defend against what is in effect an attack on the organization.
Race card. Followed by thin stuff about "allegations". At that time, Wikileaks had more urgent things to look into. "may have received material from the cables" -- the cables were supposed to all BE RELEASED. Belarus AND THE WORLD could eventually get the material.
Nonsense. They don't trust the writer, but they want him to stay in the group? What good would a "gagging agreement" do?
As for "drawing attention to, and then publishing in full, the unredacted cache of documents" in spite of a decision that "details would be protected" -- if true, that may be a sign that Wikileaks is under so much pressure defending itself and Assange, and has so few resources now that their funds have been frozen, that they may be having to dump all their stuff on hand while they still can though they don't have time or resources to edit it.
I joined WikiLeaks last November as a staffer for a three-month stint.
[....] Culture shock came just a few days in, when Julian Assange gathered core staff and supporters at Ellingham Hall, a manor house owned by the Frontline Club founder and WikiLeaks supporter Vaughan Smith.
Around the dining table the team sketched out a plan for the coming months, to release the leaked US diplomatic cables selectively for maximum impact.
Sure, this cultish organiztion is going to let someone join "for a three-month stint" and immediately put him at the table with the founders to discuss a sensitive issue.
But clearly a large volume of cables would remain, of little interest to any media organisation. Several at the meeting – myself included – stressed these documents, which would probably number hundreds of thousands, could not be published without similar careful redaction. Others vehemently disagreed.
Johannes Wahlström, Swedish journalist and son of antisemitic WikiLeaks activist Israel Shamir, shouted: "You do realise the idea of not putting ALL of these cables up is totally unacceptable to people around this table, don't you?"
Julian took Wahlström's their side. One way or another, he said, all the cables must eventually be made public.
This doesn't even make sense. They wanted to release every one of the cables; the writer wanted some names blacked out (as names had been blacked out, ie "redacted", in the first cables released. That's not a real conflict, that's a misunderstanding.
During December 2010, a period where WikiLeaks was struggling to muster even a $10,000 donation to the defence fund of Bradley Manning, the US soldier alleged to have leaked the cables, Assange nevertheless privately promised several thousand Australian dollars to fund Juice News, the makers of humorous pro-WikiLeaks YouTube videos.
So how much did the videos bring in in donations, and were they defending Wikileaks against the actions that PayPal, BOA, etc were taking against them? That's not an unreasonable decision. This was also a time when PayPal and others were freezing Wikileaks' and Assange's funds and donations.
Julian's personal legal action was not one of the stated purposes of the donations. [....] In the event, Julian mustered funds from celebrity backers. But trying to use WikiLeaks' precarious resources to fight a personal legal action was, to my view, morally indefensible.
Does anyone think Assange would have been charged with "personal" misconduct and had an international Interpol red alert warrant issued on him -- if not because of Wikileaks? Allinsky: isolate an individual, attack him personally -- to make it difficult for the organization to officially defend against what is in effect an attack on the organization.
So I decided to grit my teeth and carry on. Dismay mounted, however, with the arrival of Israel Shamir, a self-styled Russian "peace campaigner" with a long history of antisemitic writing. Shamir was introduced to the team under the pseudonym Adam, and it was only several weeks after he had left – with a huge cache of unredacted cables – that most of us started to find out who he was.
Press enquiries started to trickle in. A little research revealed his unsavoury history, but I was told Julian would be unwilling for WikiLeaks to publish anything critical of Shamir. Instead, shamefully, we put out a statement simply distancing WikiLeaks from him. [,,,,] fears that Belarus may have received material from the cables. No answers were supplied. Julian would not look into the matter.
Race card. Followed by thin stuff about "allegations". At that time, Wikileaks had more urgent things to look into. "may have received material from the cables" -- the cables were supposed to all BE RELEASED. Belarus AND THE WORLD could eventually get the material.
I attempted to leave the organisation early. This was refused. I was cornered for several days and asked to sign a gagging agreement.
Supporters were asked to "apply psychological pressure" to encourage me to sign, evidencing a growing cultlike ethos at the centre of the group.
Nonsense. They don't trust the writer, but they want him to stay in the group? What good would a "gagging agreement" do?
As for "drawing attention to, and then publishing in full, the unredacted cache of documents" in spite of a decision that "details would be protected" -- if true, that may be a sign that Wikileaks is under so much pressure defending itself and Assange, and has so few resources now that their funds have been frozen, that they may be having to dump all their stuff on hand while they still can though they don't have time or resources to edit it.
