WikiRebels: The Documentary Page #6

---

WikiLeaks has become the sensation

because the two last big scoops,

and the only scoops that have been actually

played into the hands of the mainstream media,

are sort of WikiLeaks versus the US,

or Julian Assange versus the Pentagon.

This is not what WikiLeaks is about.

It is a site that focuses on all sorts of leaks

from all over the world.

It has weakened the organisation.

That is my perception.

Too much focused on one person,

and one person's always much weaker than an organisation.

The difference of opinion began

when Assange decided to put

all of WikiLeaks' resources

into the giant American disclosures.

And it's now grown into a serious source of discontent

regarding how the organisation should be run.

I think the wisest thing to do

would have been to do this slowly,

step by step, to grow the project.

That did not happen.

What happened was to pick out the biggest releases,

to release these, to put all effort, all resources,

everything we had into producing these releases.

Other voices join in the criticism,

some through anonymous media interviews.

And now it's Assange's turn to look for leaks.

This is an extract from a chat

between Domscheit-Berg and Assange:

If you preach transparency to everyone else,

you have to be transparent yourself.

You have to fulfil the same standards

that you expect from others.

And I think that's where we've not been heading into

the same direction philosophically anymore.

The argument ends with Daniel

and several others quitting WikiLeaks.

Eventually this ended with me arguing with Julian

about basically his dictatorial behaviour.

Which ended in Julian saying to me

that if I had a problem with him,

I could just "Piss off", I quote.

Those who quit the organisation

build up their own site on the quiet - OpenLeaks -

to be run without an authoritarian editor

and serve purely as an online distribution service,

helping people deliver material anonymously to the media.

OpenLeaks is a technology project

that is aiming to be a service provider for third parties

that want to be able to accept material from anonymous sources.

Well, I'm inclined not to talk too much about the people,

the few people that have decided

that their interests are not with WikiLeaks anymore.

But what I hear is that some of the people

are contemplating to open up their own website

with the same ideal as WikiLeaks.

And I think that's an excellent idea, and I wish them well.

I think it's... the more, the better.

WikiLeaks continues to pursue its set strategy,

which leads to massive media reaction

when the next part of the material is published.

I can't think of any case where a satellite news channel,

the BBC Radio World Service,

terrestrial channels and broadcasters and their internet

are all going to go at the same time on a story.

This...disclosure is about the truth.

They're the secret files from the Iraq War...

Internet platform WikiLeaks...

Let me just say, with regards to the allegations of not intervening

when coming across detainee abuse - it's not true.

The Iraq leak hits the headlines around the world.

Thanks to Assange's strategy,

the leak has a huge impact

and greatly boosts WikiLeaks' resources.

Now 40 volunteers are brought in

to work more or less full-time for the organisation,

with another 800 people available for specific tasks.

WikiLeaks are well into planning

the release of future disclosures.

But, first, there's still the final part

of the US material to be released.

For this latest release,

we have chosen a different methodology.

We have tried to pull it out over time,

rather than having it all go out in one hit.

This time, however, the new material contains disclosures,

the consequences of which are far harder to assess

than previous releases.

The United States strongly condemns

the illegal disclosure of classified information.

In a storm of criticism,

WikiLeaks are accused of threatening world peace.

Are they and their media partners sufficiently competent

to gauge the consequences of releasing

hundreds of thousands of diplomatic dispatches,

covering everything from nuclear reactors in Iran

to Saudi Arabian domestic policy?

Or is it again a matter of the end justify the means.

For Christian Whiton, things are much simpler than that.

I think Mr. Assange is actually waging political warfare, too.

He's not using weapons,

but he's not using purely soft things either, like words.

He's using information -

wielding information against us, if you will.

That, to me, is what political warfare is.

By and large, WikiLeaks is a force for good.

I think you can't just be absolute on this.

WikiLeaks is very, very powerful.

And I think one has to be cautious

of anything that's very, very powerful in life.

WikiLeaks' website may disappear again tomorrow

or it may suddenly reappear in a thousand other locations.

History is still in the process of being written,

and the rape allegations are a long way from being settled.

One thing's clear - whatever happens,

WikiLeaks have sown a seed,

a thought that's impossible to erase.

It's about new ways and new channels

of disseminating classified information

that'll have a profound effect on transparency,

not only on the Net but in a broader global dimension.

What I really learned in the last three years

is that a difference can be made bottom up,

and not only top down.

Information does not respect borders.

States are going to have

to rethink how they approach information.

Any state which fails to do this will cease to exist.

Well, if we're gonna have a military and a defence policy,

it's predicated on having information that is controlled.

Of course, we're a democracy,

we're one of the most open countries,

I believe, in the history of the world,

but information has to be protected in certain circumstances

and denied to the public.

Democracy without transparency is not democracy.

I mean, that's just an empty word.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes