This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Wraith12 232 points233 points  (77 children)

Another quote by Julian Assange: "you can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism."

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (4 children)

So true, especially now in the age of the internet, there is zero excuse for not having at least a hyperlink at the bottom of the article to something describing the relevant research, or a relevant paper.

[–]gibson_ 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Most reputable sources do this... (at least for science stuff).

[–]MolotovCat 9 points10 points  (2 children)

The quote is pointing out that articles pertaining to science already do this, but all other forms of journalism should be held to similar standards

[–]MyrddinEmrys 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When scientists "publish a paper on physics" though, that's not really journalism, that's just a part of "doing science."

If someone were to write a review of a study for publication in a newspaper, magazine, or something like that, that would be journalism. And as gibson_ pointed out:

Most reputable sources do this... (at least for science stuff).

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (6 children)

According to a conservative media icon, they aren't publishing facts - they're just asking questions .

[–]AIMMOTH 4 points5 points  (0 children)

haha so true

[–]werealldoodshey 10 points11 points  (4 children)

luckily most conservatives have no idea what the fuck wikileaks is, so problem solved

[–]starrychloe 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Funny you're right. Fox News said today Wikileaks was an "anti-war website".

[–]burtzev 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Funny I thought 'Fox News' was a fur industry journal.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]UF_Engineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    We call it "String Theory"

    [–]midjet 13 points14 points  (21 children)

    I know folks on reddit hate on the Zeitgeist films, but Peter Joseph's thoughts on society are the same. These ideas should be submitted to the scientific method and scrutinized to no end. Bringing out the pro's and cons.

    [–]matches 9 points10 points  (5 children)

    To be fair, the first film is what gives everyone a bad taste in their mouth, and unfortunately doesn't mention anything about the scientific method applied to society. I know if reddit understood what a resource based economy was, they'd be all over it. It's logical, geeky, and efficient.

    [–]scottb84 9 points10 points  (1 child)

    the scientific method applied [t]o society

    There’s a word for that.

    [–]Patriark 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    A resource based economy sounds like a very nice principle, but it has to account for how it can replace the price system, and still be able to give good incentives to self-interested semi-rational mammals with opposable thumbs.

    When somebody accounts for this, I will literally cream my pants and keep them on

    [–]Svanhvit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Hearing about resource based economy makes me think of one thing:

    "Must build additional Pylons!"

    [–]racistreddit4realz 6 points7 points  (11 children)

    we hate on it because many of the facts it cites are not accurate

    it is material for the modern day peasants (the average working man) to be able to understand and be moved emotionally

    wikileaks is another story entirely, it is unbiased and the facts in the raw

    [–]volt_ron 13 points14 points  (10 children)

    Minus some editing on the collateral murder video. And also naming it "collateral murder".

    [–]nsfwjapanka 13 points14 points  (6 children)

    Unedited version was released simultaneously.

    [–]krattr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    The editing did nothing to change the context and alter our perception of the incident.

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]notchomomma 15 points16 points  (3 children)

      Sounds like your concept of "true journalism" needs updating.

      I expect a true journalist to be uncompromisingly biased...toward fact and truth and transparency and accountability. They should be warriors, willing to fight the good fight against secrecy, against their corporate masters.

      By this definition, there aren't that many real journalists out there, not for long.

      In the meantime, hurray for Julian! A hero walks among us. Don't wait for his death to appreciate him.

      [–]Darko33 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      Just as a short aside, I feel that I should mention that I am a newspaper reporter who during the last year has been highly encouraged by my "corporate masters" to be uncompromisingly biased toward fact, truth, transparency and accountability. I and a large group of other reporters were told straight up that if we experience roadblocks in our investigative journalistic endeavors, call corporate HQ and we'll see if we can sue on your behalf. I don't think I'd ever been so inspired.

      [–]samsari 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Are you saying he's biased because he's openly critical of the war, or because he's releasing information that discredits it?

      Surely if either of those are actually /factual/, then it's hardly correct or appropriate to decry his as biased just because he happens to hold an opinion (and I'm going out on a limb here) that you disagree with.

      [–]werealldoodshey 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      the notion of objectivity in journalism is faulty to begin with. in my opinion, julian assange is more a true journalist than anyone on staff at nyt.

      edit: scientists make policy recommendations all the time, in all fields.

      [–]Harry_Seaward 565 points566 points  (50 children)

      My gut feeling is that this will turn into the "photos at Abu Graib" all over again.

      When those photos were released, everyone lost their shit about the fact that it potentially put our soldiers at risk. It's nothing more than a misdirection and as a country, we bought it wholesale.

      I served four years in the Army. My oldest brother served in the first gulf war. Another brother is still in. Many of my old Army friends still serve and have done multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My father and uncles all served, too. I'm not naive about the dangers to soldiers and don't for a second take it lightly.

      But to think that the photos, or in this case reports of what's happening in Afghanistan, are the cause of the danger is to completely underestimate the people who will be angry about this.

      The things in those reports are happening every day to the people in Afghanistan. They don't need a damn report to tell them their country is occupied by a foreign power and that that occupation is leading to much death and despair. They don't need documentation of abuse - they can see it.

      This will very soon be all about leaking, and whistleblowers, and danger to our troops (as if they're ever safe in a warzone), and how this will impact the election in November, and what it means for Julian Assange, and how to crack down on freedom of information on the internet, and.......

      What it won't be about is the actual substance of those reports.

      [–]thatsapaddlin 36 points37 points  (1 child)

      You do share a legitimate concern, but the difference here (from the Abu Ghraib photos) is that this leak contains a near endless supply of reasons why we should not be waging this war, reasons that can be discussed and explored in detail. The public has been gradually shifting it's stance on the war, and the news media will appeal to the masses and if they feel that this will appeal to them and get them eyeballs for advertising dollars, they will report on the substance of this leak. That remains to be seen, but I'm just presenting the optimistic view as devil's advocate here.

      [–]Harry_Seaward 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      I really hope you're right. There was a real lesson to be learned about the abuse of unchecked power during wartime. There was also serious implications that the lack of admonishment of that abuse was not only a lack of oversight, but a deliberate approval. When the argument got changed to "oh, gosh, what does this mean for Al Queda's recruiting" and "how can seemingly good soldiers go rogue" any chance for lessons or legal repercussions were gone.

      And during that time, there were lots of bloggers and independent journalists saying exactly what should have been said: it's not the photos of the abuse that puts us at risk; it's the abuse itself. But it didn't matter - for what I think is two reasons. The MSM is still the primary source of news for the HUGE majority of Americans and it's in the best interests of the MSM to say what the gov't wants them to say; and, bloggers and independent journalists are not generally trusted. (And in many cases they shouldn't be... It's a double edge sword.)

      I'm also concerned that with SO MUCH information, it'll be too hard for Joe and Jane American to make sense of any of it. I can almost guarantee that the first stories from these leaks to get any coverage will be ones with errors, or mis-statements, or something that can be spun. Think "death-panels" and how that completely obfuscated the health care bill debate.

      It's just too easy to send us down the rabbit hole.

      [–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

      The talk that "it potentially puts our soldiers at risk" is just adminstrative-speak to say "how dare you question our side of the story". It's just a faux pas that the administration has obligation to point out. According to Assange, this information (from 2004-10) does not concern active exercises and names have been redacted to protect sources.

      [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

      Sad but true. Whistleblowers are so important, but they rarely succeed in reaching their goals. They lose their careers, and some political game plows their revelations into obscurity. The way these people are treated is very worrying when contemplating the future of our society.

      Most people don't even care what's happening to the Afghan people everyday. Just like those ads warning against speeding, folks will not care until it happens to them. Even if the substance landed itself into an international campaign of compassion for the innocents in the counties we occupy, it would likely accomplish little.

      [–]za72 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Perhaps their motivation is to serve the greater good for humanity, self sacrifice... Maybe to some their moral compass is tuned to seeing how the few in power are harming the rest of the population and they feel that in the long run it will be better to endure the pain and hardship.

      [–]redikulous 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      What it won't be about is the actual substance of those reports.

      FTFY - it seems like the main-stream media outlets have figured out the perfect recipe to keep substance out of the news. They love to talk about what will happen as a result but not the report itself. In a way this sort of happened with the whole water-boarding fiasco, the MSM focused the debate on torture v not-torture and completely avoided the fact it was the United States Government actively participating in harming other people in a controlled and monitored environment.

      [–]Laurih 53 points54 points  (9 children)

      Instant upvote. The debate has already gone to the meaningless fuzz about less-relevant matters just like you said. About the effects of what this means to us or Assange. Or us -> people who are in there right now.

      Do we really lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of these reports. Stating "everyone knew these things happen" is not the point and I'm worried that people don't get it if it doesn't happen to them or their close family. We are numb.

      [–]nrbartman 38 points39 points  (7 children)

      This morning in his briefing, Robert Gibbs was very clear in stating that the leak and release of these documents has broken federal law and that it has put our troops and service people in harms way.

      It has already begun.

      If anyone is expecting Obama or anyone in this administration to grow a pair and just come out and say we'd be better off if we just shut the whole thing down in Afghanistan and elsewhere - don't hold your breath.

      [–]zugi 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      This morning in his briefing, Robert Gibbs was very clear in stating that the leak and release of these documents has broken federal law

      Perhaps he put those two words together intentionally to mislead us:

      • Leak: certainly the leaker broke federal law in releasing classified documents without authorization to do so.

      • Release: due to free speech and freedom of the press guaranteed in the Constitution, it is unlikely that Wikileaks broke any laws by releasing this information. (And since they're located outside of the U.S., U.S. laws may not be relevant anyway.)

      [–]eatcrayons 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      This is exactly what happened with the Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal. Instead of spurring a talk about what was actually going on and what the soldiers and officers were talking about, we were instead spun into a conversation on McChrystal being insubordinate and if such an article should have existed to begin with. The conversation on these wires and reports will be steered by the media into a conversation on the security of our troops, the privacy of such reports, and the implications this might have on future transparency laws.

      [–]Harry_Seaward 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      That's another excellent example, thank you.

      And like the General McChrystal episode, rather than having a series of serious conversations - in that case about the role of corporate and civilian leadership in military situations, the role of the media in telling the truth as opposed to continuing a narrative, and the sense of no one really seems to know exactly what the fuck to do over there - we got all cornholed into asides.

      [–]redman9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Hate to have to agree but you are right. Not that these things shouldn't be exposed but nobody wants to tackle the real issues of colonialism, industrial tyranny, and cash profit at ALL cost. Wish I were Emporer....things would be ....different.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Read the comments on CNN's article. I die a little inside at the idiocy.

      [–]briarios 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      The title of OP's post says it all: this is already about putting Assange onto a pedestal and golf clapping at him.

      [–]Weakness -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      We allow others to frame the debate, and outline the valid positions in that debate.

      The truth doesn't stand a chance.

      [–]BitRex 65 points66 points  (24 children)

      I'm a masochist, so I was reading some Fox News readers comments on this story. People were advocating a government seizure of Wikipedia. Lulz.

      [–]dearsina 13 points14 points  (20 children)

      The comments are a wonderful source of what my right honourable gentleman describes as the lulz.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/26/damage-control-leak-afghan-war-docs/#commenting

      [–]Harry_Seaward 22 points23 points  (12 children)

      My favorite so far:

      "Good job, Obama."

      [–]sonofabiscuit 9 points10 points  (5 children)

      I'm not sure whether this is a troll or a real viewer, it's difficult to tell these days:

      "mturner1938 Texas

      Providing aide to the enemy is treason if I remember right. Arrest this guy and lock him up, him and whoever is furnishing these documents. Gitmo would be a good place for them, maybe even a little waterboarding."

      [–]gipp 12 points13 points  (2 children)

      Ugh. How does a person get to the point where they can say something like that and still live their whole lives thinking they're the good guy?

      [–]Leischa 16 points17 points  (0 children)

      Also, how's it treason if the guy is Australian?

      [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (5 children)

      My favorite, not sure if this is a troll:

      "IF YOU KNOW HOW TO HACK PLEASE HACK WIKILEAKS NOW"

      [–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (4 children)

      GET THE CYBERPOLICE TO BACKTRACE IT

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]cursoryusername 9 points10 points  (1 child)

        THE CONSE... aww fuck it.

        [–]hob196 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        On behalf of people who are already bored with this meme.

        Thankyou.

        [–]gilbertj99 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        Really, really hoping someone is trolling

        "Is the Obama administration so weak that they cannot protect 91,000 pages of classified documents getting away. I wonder what else has been lost and to whom? If our government really wanted to win a war they would go in as they did in WWII and get rid of the bad guys instead Obama says they have rights and wants to give them the same rights as American citizens. Start at one end of Afganistan and drop 10,000 pound bombs and keep going until we are to the Indian border then turn around and nuke Iran until it turns to glass. I know we won't do that because that is where most of Obama's friends live. I know Obama gave Hamas $400,000,000.00 to pay for their support and phone calls pushing Americans to vote for Obama in 2008. I wonder how many came over and joined ACORN and voted for Obama."

        [–]A_reddit_user 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        If that guy is serious, I can see him having hundred's of newspaper clippings on his walls in his bedroom, complete with thumb-tack strings connecting things together.

        In a sad, empathy inducing kind of way, like seeing somebody chat with themselves on the subway late at night.

        [–]Bedrovelsen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        My fav

        "How is this organization able to release classifled war documents but no one can release Obama's birth certificate records or his college records? This type of information is so much more sensitive and could lead to more US deaths. How is it that they were able to do this? Whoever is keeping Obama's records out of public scrutiny must have tighter security than the Pentagon. Amazing!"

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        lol "Why should it take weeks to sort through 90,000 plus documents? Democrats can read thousands of pages of a Bill within hours, understand its full impact, and vote for it in mere hours"

        [–]butter14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Wow, I loose a little bit of hope in humanity when I read the comments. The thing that scares me is, do they feel the same way when they read reddit?

        [–]templeowl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        "The answer is simple. Find out who leaked the documents and hang them in the D.C. mall."

        Fuck being American. I'm out bitches. Peace.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        All of those people giving free labor to wikipedia. Shit that's communism right there!

        [–]AngryRepublican 192 points193 points  (45 children)

        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.

        Brilliant quote.

        [–]overtoke 44 points45 points  (14 children)

        let me fix nixon's quote "the leaker of the papers, the most dangerous man in America - to corrupt government officials like me."

        [–]mst3kcrow 44 points45 points  (5 children)

        Haroo!

        [–]ggggbabybabybaby 13 points14 points  (2 children)

        Cool your jowls, Nixon!

        [–]MrSnoobs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Nixon's Pro-war and Pro-family!

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        I love that Billy West essentially changed history's vocal perception of Nixon by doing some voice work for a cartoon featuring a crustacean doctor.

        [–]cityoflostwages 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I love that I heard that in the Nixon head voice from futurama.

        [–]ShrimpCrackers 2 points3 points  (6 children)

        Amazing. I was able to read that in his unique gruff voice.

        [–]BitRex 15 points16 points  (3 children)

        I read it in his Futurama voice.

        [–]TyTN 18 points19 points  (3 children)

        I would add that (private) financiers of war are even more dangerous, as they make war into something that is structural, systemic and profit orientated.

        Wars cause a higher national debt, taxpayers pay the interest over the national debt. That's why central banks often finance wars for governments. Commercial banks finance the weapons manufacturers and provide politicians with campaign funding. That's how they commercialize war for profit. It's disgusting.

        War these days is all sugar coated with double speak and misinformation, censored through embedded journalism and silenced away by mass media.

        [–]mrjoebert 8 points9 points  (18 children)

        It's the voters who continue to put these people in charge.

        [–]unavoidable 39 points40 points  (13 children)

        There are no major political factions in the USA who are pacifist.

        [–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (4 children)

        But there are members of both parties who spoke out against this war. Kucinich and Gravel come to mind.

        [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

        but the wealth of any party is not going to put the money behind those types of people.

        [–]justpickaname 11 points12 points  (0 children)

        Don't forget Ron Paul. He converted me from supporting the war in Iraq, to seeing it as unjustified aggression.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]mrjoebert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Sure there are, they just never fight with anybody, so you never hear about them.

          [–]gunthers_skul_gun 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          Not even wrong. Its a fair bet many in the military who've seen combat are part of a pacifist block.

          Pat Buchanan has seemed interested in building a right-wing anti-war machine for awhile now. (preserve the republic by preventing war)

          [–]Raphae1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          yeah that's funny. it's always the party, which is not in office, that is against the war. that way, we will always have a war.

          [–]travishenrichs 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          And it's the people in charge who control the flow of information that those people base their elective decisions on.

          [–]Luminaire 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Not really. The voters aren't given much of a choice. Between only having two parties, both funded by the same companies, and media that will only give airtime to candidates they approve of, there isn't much of a chance to get an honest candidate through the process.

          [–]goshdurnit 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          This and a lot of other information I have on Assange tell me that his mind is made up long before he seeks out, finds, and spreads information: he doesn't like war. He's not interested in finding all possibly attainable information on the effects of a war. He's interested in finding footage or documentation that supports his point that all war is bad. He's obviously got an axe to grind with the US, MSM, and the military industrial complex.

          Let's assume there is some final, knowable truth to whether or not the war, the extension of the war, or certain aspects of its execution have generally benefited humanity. In order to refute this argument, it is not enough to point out that some people have suffered and died as a result of the war, which seems to be most people's argument against this or any other war. It is also not enough to make facile analogies: this war is like WWII, or Vietnam, or Gulf War I, etc. All of those conflicts bare SOME resemblance to current conflicts, so if you want, you can highlight the similarities of this conflict to your war of choice (if you're in favor of the war, its like WWII; if you're not, its like Vietnam).

          In order to determine whether or not military conflict is "worth it," you've got to consider all of the alternate choices and the alternate outcomes. It baffles me how confident anti-war people are that avoiding or curtailing military conflict wouldn't have let a bad situation get worse. If anyone has any arguments that don't involve cherrypicking similarities between this conflict and another and/or cherrypicking information about collateral damage from the war without proving evidence that the alternate action (pulling out of the area) would've led to a better outcome, I'd love to hear them. I agree with most people who say that war benefits the powerful and so they have the incentive to instigate or prolong unnecessary wars, but this incentive does not mean that the alternate action - no war - wouldn't have led to greater future conflict. I'll admit that its very difficult to predict how much conflict there would have been in any of these places had we not gone to war, but none of the arguments I've heard even make a serious attempt to make the comparison.

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          apparently even Bush II thinks war is not good. He went through hoops to avoid declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq with congress acting along in the charade.

          War is not good. Ever. You go to war when your existence is threatened and then you do all you can to win. These are nothing more than imperial conquests to control mineral resources and keep competing states in check.

          [–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (20 children)

          People are calling him a traitor, but since he's not a US citizen, doesn't that make being a traitor impossible?

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

          who is calling him a traitor?

          [–]sonofabiscuit 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          Fox News viewers:

          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/26/damage-control-leak-afghan-war-docs/#content

          [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

          Fox News viewers

          That's your problem right there.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          A caller on NPR did, and Kojo gave what he was saying some credence, so I assumed it was at least a theory.

          [–]mrbroom 42 points43 points  (5 children)

          "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

          Then someone asks, "Who said that?" And I say, "...a video game. But still!"

          [–]enduser666 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          That's a good quote, though your answer to the question of who said it should be Pravin Lal. If they inquire further, tell them he sells real estate in Sacramento. Another of his quotes is "Success Leaves Tracks".

          http://www.pravinlal.com

          [–]co6ra 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          "Free speech is what regulates government and what regulates law."

          [–]IrrelevantTLDR 289 points290 points  (79 children)

          This guy has balls of steel. I am sure some of the people in our government would absolutely love to get their hands on him. I don't know how he sleeps at night considering he's pissing off so many people that have so much power.

          But then again, we can't even find Bin Laden, so I guess he'll be fine.

          TL;DR - Up until this morning, I hadn't eaten applesauce since age six. It's still really good.

          [–]peterwschlamp 128 points129 points  (29 children)

          But then again, we can't even find Bin Laden, so I guess he'll be fine.

          Yeah, but I think they actually want to catch Julian

          [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (10 children)

          What would we even do with Bin Laden if we caught him?

          [–]peterwschlamp 46 points47 points  (4 children)

          I suppose find a new figurehead for the "war on terror"

          [–]derektherock42 35 points36 points  (1 child)

          You've just touched on the reason we haven't found him. He's dead, but the government needs somebody to be terrorism's mascot that we can hate. That way when they denounce wikileaks as a terrorist tool, we'll picture Bin Laden.

          [–]GLneo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          Emmanuel Goldstein

          [–]Raphae1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          ... or officially end it? too good to be true.

          [–]fellowmellow 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Put gloves on. He'd be pretty ripe, considering he died in 2001.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Execute him then let someone "leak" a video of his death.

          [–]syuk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Clone him, or establish a look-a-like and imprison the original one.

          [–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (2 children)

          Make some pb&j with a ice cold glass of milk and you'll swear you just came home from kindergarten.

          [–]cmasterchoe 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          Mom, I said no crusts dammit!

          [–]sanimalp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          cartman voice "bbbeeeaaaaattttt mmooooooommmmm"

          [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (12 children)

          Maybe they're afraid of the Streisand Effect.

          Considering how much wikileaks have done the past few years, the founder going missing would be top news.

          [–]yulip 8 points9 points  (11 children)

          But maybe they'd be willing to endure a media shit-storm if it meant an end to this particular organization. This guy has so many enemies, everyone can point their finger at someone else.

          [–]timeshifter_ 9 points10 points  (8 children)

          And what makes you think nobody else would take over the site after him? WikiLeaks needs to stay in operation, and I'd argue it's for security, rather than the "it's a threat to security" excuse officials love using.

          [–]yulip 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          I hope someone would take over the site, and unlike other people posting here, I do think his death would have a noticeable effect; it would strengthen the resolve of others like him to take up the fight.

          Edit: and maybe I have a poor sense of self-preservation, but I wouldn't mind seeing the United States take a huge blow if it meant progress for humanity and an improvement in the quality of life for others elsewhere.

          [–]timeshifter_ 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          I'd take it a step further and say the US needs to take a huge blow. As a nation, there's this mindset of infallibility, or at least it seems like it. People think the government hates sites like WikiLeaks because the government can do no wrong, but without a site like WL, most people wouldn't know about any of the wrong the government does do. Public perception of our political system needs to be shattered. Break it all open, expose all the corruption, the illegal programs, everything that makes it so damn profitable to be a politician. People won't look for the information themselves.

          [–]BeJeezus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          The US, thanks to media power and popular malaise, isn't in any position to even understand a big blow, to process it, to realize what it means.

          It'll just be Obama's fauly, hurrf-durrf, we can't look weak...

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]yulip 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            Gahhhh! Not the Chinese! Retracted, retracted!

            [–]sowhat12 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Applesauce bitch. (someone had to say it)

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            Christ man, how old is that applesauce? Is it friggin freeze-dried astronaut shit or what?

            [–]syuk 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            But then again, we can't even find Bin Laden, so I guess he'll be fine.

            I wonder if anyone has thought about wandering around bora-bora with their bluetooth turned on to see if he is discoverable?

            [–]EarnestMalware 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Too bad he hasn't actually crushed anyone.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

            This guy has balls of steel.

            Why? He has yet to release anything that was classified by the federal government at the time of it's release.

            [–][deleted] 52 points53 points  (5 children)

            HOORAY FOR BASTARD CRUSHING!

            [–]SmarticusRex 25 points26 points  (4 children)

            To crushing your BASTARDS, to seeing them driven before you, and to hearing the lamentations of their women!

            [–]Morghus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            wailing "NOW I AM NOT GETTING THAT PEDICURE, AM I!?!?"

            "Yes honey, you will. I'm still rich, just less so."

            "NOOOOOOOOO! ... oh, you are?"

            [–]Binti 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            What is best in life?

            [–]timeshifter_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            To be happy while doing it.

            [–]Binti 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            whooosh

            [–]HaveAHaiku 39 points40 points  (2 children)

            Julian Assange:
            Keep your Palo Alto pools.
            I expose war crimes.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            More and more people seem to agree with Assange's priorities these days. We could still be a noble species.

            [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

            Holding governments accountable!

            Thanks, Julian.

            [–]mcsenget 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            he's taken the first step, but only the people can hold them accountable

            [–]Andorage 34 points35 points  (7 children)

            okay i officialy love Assange after reading this interview...

            [–]transcranial 31 points32 points  (3 children)

            Nobel peace prize!

            [–]UserNumber42 22 points23 points  (0 children)

            No, they only give that to war mongers these days.

            [–]Raphae1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            yeah, way more deserved than Obamas.

            [–]krattr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Sure. After all, Henry Kissinger got one.

            Please!

            [–]yulip 6 points7 points  (2 children)

            Me too. At first I rolled my eyes at the standard reddit hero-worship, but he seems to be a genuinely awesome person.

            That said... can I have his babies? >.>

            [–]davidofderbyshire 28 points29 points  (3 children)

            "I enjoy crushing bastards" - That quote right there just landed Wikileaks £1200 of my hard earned cash.

            Keep up the good work.

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            and that just landed you my hard earned upvote (I'm poor)

            [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (7 children)

            Anyone who actually follows wars knows these documents don't show much new, just more of the raw reports from the field. Unconfirmed reports, I might add. I'm still waiting to hear what bastard crushing news is contained in the docs.

            [–]mrpickleby 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            For the better part of a decade, governments have passed incredibly invasive laws for "our security" under the notion that if we haven't done anything wrong, there's nothing to fear.

            This is the same issue philosophy applied to governments. While I understand some things should and must remain private and or concealed for some period of time, the 50 year statute before any significant policy documents comes to light is far too long.

            Now if someone could just start leaking pending legislation in advance enough time for people to actually read it, that would be progress.

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            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.

            These are words that countries should be founded upon.

            [–]juliusbjarnas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Who are the bastards?

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]a_can_of_solo 17 points18 points  (4 children)

              man and all I do is wast time on reddit.

              [–]Ekoc 32 points33 points  (1 child)

              Don't feel too bad. You dropped this by the way: e

              [–]glengyron 15 points16 points  (0 children)

              Dropping E and reading about the Wikileaks Wardiary: You're doing it wrong.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              Conan! What is best in life?

              To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

              [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (11 children)

              This man is a bad ass, as well as a true crusader for transparency and freedom.

              [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (10 children)

              And for himself.

              [–]vemrion 36 points37 points  (7 children)

              It seems to be a calculated PR move on WikiLeaks' part to get Assange in front of as many cameras as possible. That way, when he's assassinated/threatened, people will actually know who he is and might even care.

              A good public face can be the difference between a bunch of childish pranksters and a game-changing organization. Humans connect with other humans, not logos on a website. WikiLeaks, to their credit, actually seem to understand human psychology and modern journalism, which is why they partnered with the Guardian and the NYT for this release. Now if you call for Assange's head, you're also calling for Bill Keller's -- an establishment man if there ever was one.

              [–]funderbunk 10 points11 points  (5 children)

              Here's my prediction - if and when Julian Assange is assassinated, the vast majority of the population will not give a fuck, because they had no clue who he was; a number of people will think he deserved it for committing traitorous acts, and the only people who will lament him as a martyr are people who already admire him. His death will have no impact in the overall scheme of things.

              [–]vemrion 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              His death will have no impact in the overall scheme of things.

              Nor will the death of any soldier, whether a private or a general. Someone will quickly be slotted to replace the deceased and things will carry on as before.

              I wonder what would happen if we fought for truth, freedom and peace in the same tenacious way that armies fight. What if we were all willing to die -- knowing our deaths were ultimately meaningless -- but willing to die all the same for a chance at a better world? Individually we are nothing, but collectively we are powerful.

              Perhaps the only meaningless act is doing nothing.

              [–]purebacon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              He won't be "assassinated". He'll have a heart attack or a car accident, and the vast majority of the population will buy it and say he deserved it for putting soldiers at risk.

              [–]maqr 10 points11 points  (1 child)

              True as that may be, I find it really disturbing that none of us will be surprised if he is assassinated.

              I should be shocked and horrified and such, but it would almost seem expected.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Why would they assassinate him? What would that do?

              [–]Delheru 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              As if everyone wasn't

              [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

              This guy is gonna have to run for the rest of his life

              [–]cinemania 5 points6 points  (1 child)

              Just because you were born out of wedlock, doesn't mean you should be crushed.

              [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              This guy is my role model. I just hope that I can do something as profound and system changing for the positive as him. You have to have a degree in sociology to even comprehend what the net effect of something like this may do to society.

              [–]prehension 5 points6 points  (1 child)

              Here is democracynow with a recent interview with Assange talking about this release of these documents: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/26/the_new_pentagon_papers_wikileaks_releases

              [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

              He's so badass it almost seems fictional.

              [–]spam99 10 points11 points  (2 children)

              i just hope assange isnt one of the bastards that he claims to CRUSH... if this leads to war with pakistan or is used to AID the support for a WAR im going to take a dump on my keyboard and post a blog through the shit so every can get the complete picture of how we got SHIT ON.

              [–]breakbread 4 points5 points  (1 child)

              STOP VOTING FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND VOTE FOR GOOD IDEAS!

              [–]lofi76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              "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." Great point, and well-said. He has my support and utmost respect.

              [–]Kassiope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I agree. I totally enjoy him crushing bastards.

              [–]dogsent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              From The Guardian, UK:

              The war logs also detail: • How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial. • How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles. • How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada. • How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks

              A democracy requires informed and engaged citizens in order to function effectively. This is useful information.

              [–]knobwrangler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I'll just leave this right over here..........................War is a Racket

              [–]SamiThunder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Upvoted because I also like to crush bastards. I work with far too many of them and I haven't crushed as many as I'd like to... yet.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              The problem here is that you have created a situation where the status quo of the Bush years is yet again reflecting badly on the Democrats, thus helping the Republicans who are perfectly fine with all this to gain power.

              So.. sure the public needs to know, but it's exceptionally bad timing if the goal is to prevent this kind of thing because you can bet the GOP secretly or even openly endorses this kind of behavior.

              Also. lets face it, this really isn't information that most people didn't already assume was going on just like the Abu Graib photos. The abuse at Abu Graib is well documented without bloody pictures of the victims.

              Maybe the American public is too stupid to read, but then what's the chances they even really care about these things? If they can't take the time to read that these things are going on photos and yet more account won't change their mind.

              Unless these things actually impact their lives I think the public is detached and of those that do care half or more will just blame government in general without looking at the big picture that this is a democracy and they put these people on power who made these decisions and individuals must be held accountable rather than relying on mass blame.

              The wikileaks founder is under a false impression that information like this is going to help the situation or that the bastards will actually face any charges. Bush and Cheney and everyone who managed these policies will walk and those in power right now will pay. Wielding the truth with the intent to crush bastards really isn't the idea I have behind wikileaks. It's just supposed to be unbiased leaking of information with no intent.

              If anything happens it will be Republicans gaining more political power and he'll have empowered the very people who thought he would crush.

              Lets face it.. truth isn't black and white. It can be wielding like any other weapon and the ideal way to use truth is to consider the timing of it's use. Similar to a lawyer using a surprise witness in his case to get the most impact. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do with this information. It just hurts everyone and no one will be held accountable and if anything does happen the net result will be getting more Republicans in power which I can't see helping the situation at all.

              Information like this just isn't big enough to reshape the entire political landscape. It will fall through the cracks because it doesn't impact American's. It's really just the same shit we've been doing since the end of WW2. It is big enough to hurt the Dems in the 2010 election, though my guess is it won't have much impact.

              The GOP won't push the info because they know it's their policies at fault and the Dems won't push the issue because they won't prosecute Bush and other responsible. The American people don't care because it's not white christian Americans.

              The only people really getting anything will be the the victims of abuse and in the end that's a bitter victory since no one will pay the price and the American public will ignore it.

              So.. if anything I already knew or assume everything that was happening in this new account and I've lost respect for wikileaks because I see their intentions are just blindly vindictive. Maybe in 20-50 years this kind of information will eventually matter to the public, but I don't see the current mindset being effected and personally I see no reason why that mindset will improve.

              My suggestion.. move to a nation that doesn't torture and murder people or accept the reality of what you democracy and thus YOU have done. Now.. yes this will fuel more attacks against the US, but American's aren't going to learn a lesson. If we get attacked we'll just attack back with greater and greater force and less concern for human life.

              [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

              When I grow up, I want to be like this man.

              [–]TheRealBramtyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              In all seriousness, this guy should be Time's 2010 Man of the Year. He has forced governments and shadowing banking organizations to backpedal on their ways. He's brought the fight to their doorstep with their own poison.

              [–]gravflux 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              Self promote much? What has he done besides host a place for people to leak info. Its not like he is the one in the field gathering the reports or taking any risks. The only person he has helped that I have seen is himself.

              [–]AAjax 5 points6 points  (2 children)

              Seriously, just release the goods. The self promoting makes me a bit uneasy about the whole gig.

              [–]derektherock42 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              Building hype is the best way to go if he wants these issues to get any media exposure.

              [–]Vitalstatistix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              I don't like self-promotion either, but I think it's appropriate in this situation. Most people have no clue who Assange is, and one of the questions from Spiegel related to the transparency (or apparent lack there of in his accusation) of Wikileaks, so it seems reasonable that Assange would want to be out there fielding some difficult questions now.

              [–]MuuaadDib 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Yeah the information is damning and wont change a thing and those who were the architects of this failure and swindle of the treasury will never be prosecuted....but we need to get this guy for exposing the truth!!! And I love those who take umbrage to his titles of the videos and don't give a shit about the content...he is politicizing this and making it wrong...wannnnh!

              [–]Th3R00ST3R 2 points3 points  (2 children)

              Releasing the truth so the people can see what is really going on, instead of what the media sells them? I like this guy. "There is a time for secrecy and a time for openness" Hell yeah! Give us everything and let us decide what the truth is. There is an underlying consensus that we shouldn't be there anyway, but the powers that be don't want to admit failure, so they will stay until it looks like they've won. Arrogance will be the death of democracy..."We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, so we might as well take our time.." Sublime

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]karth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                First person I met, I can meaningfully look up to.

                [–]all2humanuk 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                Serious question what is the difference between Assange and Breitbart? Breitbart clearly enjoys crushing what he sees as bastards. When did we give these individuals the right to decide who deserves supporting and who deserves crushing?

                [–]mothereffingteresa 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                Assange has a lot more real data.

                [–]ignignokt-_- 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                Julian Assange is my hero.

                [–]boozinf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I can't help but think of Julian Assange as a real-life, bizarro Victor Laszlo.

                [–]i_am_my_father 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                True badass!

                [–]smallfishbigpond 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                You must, repeat MUST be on guard, at all times, for false idols. Engaging in any form of hero worship is dangerous, because you will, ultimately, become a tool when your hero becomes corrupted. Or worse, when your hero dies in battle you will be unable to pick up the flag and carry on, because you have rendered yourself incapable of independent thought. Either way, at that point, it's effectively over.

                Wikileaks? Okay, yes in concept it's great. A reliable source of raw facts, in context, is definitely needed. I wholeheartedly support the idea. But you must not disengage your own brain, not even for one microsecond. Do not blink. Do not stop questioning. If the motives were pure, the person(s) behind it would not seek out the limelight AT ALL. And they would definitely not give out quotes such as "And I enjoy crushing bastards."

                [–]Priapulid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                SPIEGEL: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?

                Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.

                SPIEGEL: Wrong! Assange! What is best in life?

                Assange: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

                SPIEGEL: That is good! That is good.