Nutball Wikileaks founder tries to blackmail Amnesty International

By | August 12, 2010, 7:23am PDT

Summary: It’s starting to look like Assange has somehow lost his way, becoming more deranged opportunist than activist.

When it comes to espionage suspects, I think I prefer sexy Russian spies over crazy Australian fugitives.

On the one hand, you’ve got Anna Chapman, who’s only real crime (well, except for the spying) was that she wanted to start an Internet company in Manhattan.

On the other hand, you’ve got Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who’s now blackmailing Amnesty International and other human rights groups for $700,000 to remove names of Afghan civilians who might get killed by the Taliban if their names get released on Wikileaks.

All Anna wanted was some good LinkedIn connections. Assange wants cash — and if he doesn’t get it, he’ll publish documents containing the names of innocent civilians — civilians who the Taliban won’t hesitate to kill.

It’s starting to look like Assange has somehow lost his way, becoming more deranged opportunist than activist. While Wikileaks could be a special resource in our fight for light in an ever-darkening world, it looks like the site may become a victim of its founder’s inability to tame the geopolitical forces he’s so happily setting free.

According to The Daily Beast, the United States Government is in discussions with Australia, Great Britain, Germany, and other nations, asking them to all bring charges against Assange.

Because the documents he’s released may put troops for all these countries at risk, officials in the various NATO countries are seriously considering running Assange up the flagpole and hoisting him on his own petard.

Assange has developed an apparently unearned reputation among his misguided fans as a brave peace activist, standing up to the forces of government worldwide, on behalf of the downtrodden. But wait. If that is the case, why has Assange gone out of his way to blackmail the real organizations who have spent decades actually standing up to the forces of government worldwide on behalf of the downtrodden?

Earlier this week, Amnesty International and four other organizations emailed Wikileaks and Assange requesting exactly what I recommended last week, that the Web site take better care in choosing what to disclose.

When Amnesty International asked for better filtering so civilians aren’t killed in the most gruesome of ways as a result of his actions, he demanded $700,000 for what he called a “harm minimization review”. This is, again, why I think Assange is in it for the chaos, rather than for a better world.

So where does that leave Assange and Wikileaks? Interestingly, although the Wikileaks site claims it was created by activities and scientists, the only name we’ve been seeing is the name of our one nutball: Assange. Everyone else is distancing themselves from this can of worm feces.

Wikileaks may survive, but only if it gets governance, grows up, and works and plays well with others. Assange, on the other hand, should enjoy his notoriety while he can. Somewhere, in some NATO country, there’s a padded cell being readied for his future occupancy.

Update: corrected Assange’s country of origin.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
112
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Nutball Wikileaks founder tries to blackmail Amnesty International
mkemp@... 6th Jun
@tsteele@...
There is no work to do. No posting the lists does not take any 'work', there is a lack of work. So where is the cost?
I don't believe this..

I trust Assange more than I trust anyone at Amnesty.. Assange is not mentally deranged to commit such political & PR suicide..

This paragraph & the adjectives in the article makes me wary of this article enough

***When Amnesty International asked for better filtering so civilians aren?t killed in the most gruesome of ways as a result of his actions, he demanded $700,000 for what he called a ?harm minimization review?. This is, again, why I think Assange is in it for the chaos, rather than for a better world.***
@Rahul Mulchandani

The whole point of the killing of civilians for the Taliban is to intimidate other civilians. The killings are self-consciously gruesome. That's the point of them.
@bhartman36 So too is the reason the US predators try to kill the entire families of their assassination targets.
@AustinHook

Predators are out there to kill the terrorists (the people trying to kill our forces and the Afghanis in the government). They're not being targeted at civilians. The Taliban go after innocent Afghanis that haven't done anything to anyone, for the sole purpose of intimidating the population. It's not even close to the same thing, unless you make no distinction between say, murderers and schoolchildren.
0 Votes
+ -
Me too...
wmlundine 12th Aug 2010
I do not believe gerwitz. There is something missing.
0 Votes
+ -
I question whether any lives are in danger
HollywoodDog 13th Aug 2010
@wmlundine ... carefully reading the news below the fold on this story, Pentagon spokesmen have been asked and answered that they have no evidence of any person being killed as a result of the last round of document dumps.
This is just the only argument they have against the idea of releasing them, dutifully picked up by their apologists and parrots in state-run media.
Nixon and company argued exactly the same thing over the Pentagon Papers and Tricky Barry is taking a page from that playbook.
I don't beat Gewirtz up too much; his notions of patriotism come from 80's movies and although misguided he believes he is serving a higher truth by retailing this stuff.
Gewirtz is incapable of extrapolating a zero-eth law; that shortening the war is good for humanity. He is the unwitting pawn of those on the other end of all this defense spending.
A fool on the throne isn't absolved of responsibility because he is a fool, but Gewirtz isn't on the throne.
HollywoodDog --

Your statement that Gurwitz's "notions of patriotism come from 80's movies" is itself naive and specious. You sound all wise and patronizing when you say it, but it's really just pabulum you absorbed uncritically from your blame-America-first PoliSci 101 prof, right? It sounds like a typical college-freshman catchphrase spouted after (ahem) learning that "Everything I thought I knew about America is WRONG!!!"

Please.

Your own notion that "shortening the war is good for humanity" ignores the situation we would be leaving for inhabitants of Afghanistan if we left too early. I would suggest instead that "ending the TALIBAN is good for humanity." And guess what: their brand of zealous sadism is not eradicated with words.

Some questions for you: can you TRULY believe that Assange's intentions are noble when his disclosures could cost lives? Even if there's only a CHANCE of retribution/retaliation, is it worth the risk to do so? And how would disclosure help to end the war -- for better or worse -- anyway?

You speak of apologists, yet you yourself sound like an apologist for some of the worst perpetrators of barbarity in the modern world.
instead believing they are owed something by society. The pattern related to Assange is indicating that he is nothing more then a petty theif, who used his past thefts as an attempt to build a noble reputation among those he cares little for, beyond how much protection he can get from them.
People like Assange can never be trusted.

In return, he'll let others die, maybe even the son of a neighbor of someone defending Assange .

I am sure the irony is not lost on him.

Greed is one of the worst emotions that you humans have.
plain
Why didn't the author of this article, David Gewirtz, mention the civilians who were killed by NATO forces, events which were covered up by the military, but made public by Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

OK. Maybe you can criticize both sides, the military and Assange. However, this article, for unexplained reason, only criticizes Assange.

To this day, we would not know about those civilian deaths in Afghanistan, if Wikileaks had not let the world know. The public has a right to know about the causalities of war. It should not be a military secret. We should know.
Market Analyst --

So we didn't know about civilian deaths without Wikileaks and Assange? Are you actually serious?

Every time a civilian is killed by western forces (often due to their use as human shields by the Taliban and other insurgents), left-leaning media outlets worldwide trumpet it from the rooftops.

For left-leaning, military-hating journalists, civilians killed by NATO forces are Christmas in July. You can sense their barely-restrained glee as they describe unfortunate but isolated tragedies, all the while ignoring the constant reconstruction, training, and relief efforts that our forces perform every day.

I wish someone would "leak" the scope of GOOD that military personnel do, unthanked, and at great personal risk. But, hey, we can't have that information getting out ... it would turn one of liberals' sacred cows ("the Evil Military War Machine") into hamburger.
@gyepera

Why do you assume that you have a right to know? is it a form a voyeurism? War is dirty and people die! Before and during D-Day (June 6, 1944) between 15,000 and 30,000 French people die as collateral damage when allied forces bombed German positions on the Normandy coast line. Did the French cry foul play? Did they sue? did they complain? Of course not because they understood the "bigger pciture".
The other thing that is off in this article is the lack of understanding of a business transaction. Amnesty International wanted to have something done that would take time and people to achieve. Assange put a price tag on that service, essentially saying - if you want this service provided now, it will take this amount of money to provide it. I don't know anybody in the world that would consider a business transaction blackmail. Gerwitz needs to clarify his thinking even more.
@tsteele@... Absolutely. I guess what Gerwitz is saying is that Assange himself should read all of the 10's of 1000's of leaks and work out who's at fault before they get published.

What Assange is doing is cunning strategy: He's drawing in a massive organisation with massive resources who's interests are not that far from his own organisations and compelling them to put their money where their mouth is. Bravo, and problem solved. 700k is nothing to Amnesty.
@tsteele@...
There is no work to do. No posting the lists does not take any 'work', there is a lack of work. So where is the cost?
Good info, bad tone. Ya got rather hateful and opinionated there at the end.
@Wodenhelm

You afraid to hate? Do you have an opinion on women as property?
@Wodenhelm
Right, the Taliban should be considered for all the good things they do as well.
Why don't you list them for us?
@dpkingbluesguitar I think you need to consider that We (The US) were the ones who put the Taliban into power to help up fight off the then Communist Russians. We armed them, funded them and then left them hanging out to dry as soon as the Russians pulled out.

We had a chance to prevent all this by sticking around and honoring our commitment to them to help build a better life for them but instead we simply walked away leaving them with all the guns and bombs we gave them and the training on how to use them and a sense that they had been used.

It came back to bite us in the ass in a bad way
dpkingbluesguitar --

Come on now, dpkingbluesguitar, we have to consider the Taliban's feelings in all of this. We don't want to call them names and damage their fragile self-esteem.

After all, according to Wodenhelm (I assume), if we just treat them nicely, they'll come to see the error of their ways.
A legend in his own mind!
Julian Assange lives up to his last name, or at least the first three letters of his last name.
0 Votes
+ -
Wait a second
nomorebs Updated - 14th Aug 2010
Are you saying that the solution is to kill the messenger? Why? Shouldn't the solution be that the U.S. government finds the bastard(s) who is providing Assange with the documents he will publish? I can't imagine what the Russians and Chinese are getting from these insiders and the U.S. is clueless about just because it's not published in WikiLeaks.

Gewirtz gets a D-
nomorebs --

I'd say we kill the messenger AND his sources. Nothing good comes from their attempts to undermine allied efforts against the Taliban and other insurgents.

If you believe that women are property, that gays should be stoned, and that people of any other faith (even non-fanatical Muslims) should be slaughtered, then go on supporting Assange and his vile network of "leakers."
@Churlish: me supporting the Taliban? Don't be ridiculous. I'm attacking the silly logic of the blogger who thinks the solution is to silence Assange. When he is not present anymore the informants will sell other classified information to North Korea or Iran. I said: identify those informants and discipline them. I never said I supported such informants. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Besides, you sound a lot like W Bush: whomever doesn't agree with me regarding Guantanamo, wiretapping, waterboarding, etc. must be supporting the Taliban, stoning, etc. Sorry, but people now are not as gullible as then.
nomorebs --

I'm not saying that you specifically support the actions of the Taliban. Use of the general "you" in my previous post was unfortunate, and I apologize.

I'm merely suggesting that those who seek out and leverage such information -- either for personal gain or as a bargaining chip to further a political philosophy -- can't claim to have clean hands. What if the leaked data listed members of the Federal Witness Protection program? Would Assange be the "brave champion of truth" (as some see him) if his disclosures might reveal the identities of those who testified against organized crime figures, drug cartels, etc.? If not, then I fail to see the distinction between that disclosure and the one threatened by his "Insurance" file.

Also, you seem to think that by accepting the classified information, Assange and Wikileaks are some kind of white-hat buffer preventing the leakers from selling damaging intel to North Korea or Iran. But please tell me this -- what stops them from leaking to any and all bad actors on the global stage, even with Wikileaks up and running?
0 Votes
+ -
-
mrgoose Updated - 19th Aug 2010
-
It is very unfortunate that in the process of exposing the truth about the Afghanistan War, people that helped the US Forces are being exposed as well. The Pentagon has shown in the past NOT to care much about the lives and well beings of individuals (see what happened after the US didn't need the Mujaheddin anymore) and as such it puzzles me that the request to do THE RIGHT THING comes from the likes that don't....

Now blackmailing Amnesty International IS NOT what assange did. He ASKED what Wikileaks should do, give the fact that they simple don't have the funds to do what AI asked. Matter of fact, I am sure, that AI activists that would be willing to volunteer would not be turned away.

So, Mr. Gewirtz... Stop the propaganda, and stick to the truth... Will you
@albi@... Just where did Assange give this '$700.000 or volunteers' option you state?
You speak for Assange? 'Matter of fact, I am sure, that AI activists that would be willing to volunteer would not be turned away.' Just where did he state this?
'So, albi@... Stop the propaganda, and stick to the truth... Will you'
this thread sucks, now real reporters left, all use anonymous sources to hide rumors....sucks
0 Votes
+ -
Assange is a criminal
neverhome 12th Aug 2010
If Assange is knowingly putting innocent people (including my 22 year-old son in Afghanistan) in danger, then he deserves at the very least to spend the rest of his life in prison. Releasing classified documents is a serious crime regardless of the supposed motive.
@neverhome

Please understand that our children are in harms way because of an illegal war perpetrated by the military-industrial lobbyists... What Wikileaks did, is exposing the fact the occupation in Afghanistan is doomed. As a result we should STOP throwing money at it and get our loved ones home where they belong.

We, the allied forces, are the invaders ... don't forget that. You would defend your house,city, country if an outside force came to bring "peace", wouldn't you...

So yes .... wanna help our boys ? Demand the Pentagon/White House brings them home...
@albi@... We, the allied forces, are the invaders ... don't forget that.

Just curious.. do you remember why we are there?
0 Votes
+ -
True story
HollywoodDog 13th Aug 2010
@albi@... authenticated by Time magazine.

Marines were on patrol in Afghanistan, stopped to ask a local "Have you seen any foreign fighters?"

"Yes", a villager replied. "You."
@albi@...

No, you are wrong. The war in Afghanistan is very much legal and justified. Do not confuse it with the war in Iraq.
0 Votes
+ -
Why is the United States (still) in Afghanistan?
mrgoose Updated - 14th Aug 2010
@Badgered. Seems this is one of the great mysteries of our time!

As I recall, the war in Afghanistan was originally in retaliation for the suicide bombings in New York, 2001-09-11. Seems the US president at the time had great difficulty in grasping the concept of a " suicide bombing " and felt the need to blame and bomb someone.

Then it was to capture or kill alleged 9/11 architect Osama Bin Laden - though that idea soon dropped off the proverbial radar for reasons that have never been adequately explained. Nor was the true nature of Al-Qaeda explained, though the bearded, dark-skinned Bin Laden made a fantastic bogeyman and was even used to justify the illegal war in Iraq.

Then the purpose of the Afghan war was to defeat the Taliban - which of course has failed miserably. Ironically, the Taliban were formerly part of the Mujahideen, a group of fierce rebels that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1970's and 1980's. Only in those days, they were "holy warriors and freedom fighters, defending democracy and the American way, etc., etc." Consequently, under the Reagan administration, they were the proud recipients of truck-loads of American weapons and wads of hard currency, delivered with the compliments of the CIA.

Then, one day, the US generals realised they didn't have enough manpower to defeat the Taliban. So suddenly the mission became to " liberate women ". After all, the womenfolk were having a pretty grim time under Taliban rule. So what better way to extract more money out of Congress and put more troops on the ground?

This was followed by claims that the true purpose was to prop up the " democratically " elected government of President Hamid Karzai. The proverbial wheels fell off when it was revealed that around 1/3 of Karzai's votes were, in fact, rigged and two of his senior election officials were forced to resign.

I understand the latest " objectives " involve weeding out the corruption in the US puppet Afghan Government, followed by an orderly but face-saving withdrawal of US and other NATO troops. However, NATO chiefs are somewhat backward in coming forward regarding how these latest " objectives " could be achieved.

The situation is made more complex by Karzai's claims that the vote fiddling was actually the work of the US and its allies. He also blames the United States for empowering the Taliban in the first place - conveniently forgetting of course that he also supported the Mujahideen back in the 1980's. With a minimum of publicity, " secret " negotiations with the Taliban began in May 2010. This is particularly distasteful to Karzai because the Taliban gunned down his father in 1999-07-14.

Today it seems that Afghan women's rights have quietly been dropped from NATO's agenda, just like " capturing Osama bin Laden " was several years earlier. Moreover, the talk in the circles of power seems more of " doing a deal with " the Taliban, rather than " defeating " them.

Throughout this sad and sorry saga, we were also told that the United States had a secondary purpose in Afghanistan, namely to stamp out the production of opium - the raw ingredient for heroin. Needless to say, opium production has actually seen a steady year-on-year growth throughout the US occupation and today Afghanistan supplies over 93% of the global opiates market.

Meantime the poor old taxpayer is starting to ask him/herself who is the least credible:- the Terrible Taliban, the Crooked Karzai, the Prevaricating Pentagon, or a US administration that seems to change its story as often as some people change their underpants? Fact is, they have all lied and they all have much blood on their hands. And I use the words " poor taxpayer" advisedly. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already cost the United States in excess of one trillion dollars !

Which leads me neatly to the ultimate irony. When the United States fought (and eventually lost) the Vietnam war, the world was told it was to stop the spread of Communism - the so-called " domino theory ". Today, a significant proportion of the money the United States has squandered on its latest round of pointless wars was borrowed from the " top domino " - the People's Republic of China .

Some interesting further reading, from a rather surprising source:-
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/26/why-are-we-in-afghanistan
Wow, so much evidence of indoctrination and misinformation here.

If America and its allies are truly the antagonists in Afghanistan, tell me this: Which side is working to establish a free and equitable government, and which employs Medieval tortures to execute adulterers, homosexuals, and people of differing faiths?

You blame-America-first types are really quite disgusting in your willful distortion of reality.
0 Votes
+ -
@Churlish. Now I know you're having a laugh! Exactly what part of Karzai's US-sponsored regime do you consider to be " free and equitable government "?

Time: " Can the U.S. Still Work with Afghanistan's Karzai?" :-
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1920954,00.html

Washington Post: " Why Hamid Karzai makes a bad partner for the U.S. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040703685.html

UK Conservative paper, Daily Telegraph: " Afghanistan: Our troops are giving their lives to safeguard a rigged election "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/maryriddell/5819915/Afghanistan-Our-troops-are-giving-their-lives-to-safeguard-a-rigged-election.html

Transparency.org's Corruption Index, ranking the US puppet government in Afghanistan at #179. Just one country, Somalia, gets a worse rating!
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table a href="http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/64252,news-comment,news-politics,doctors-accused-of-helping-refine-us-torture-methods" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"

WRT Torture, since you raise the subject, I agree the Taliban's methods are medieval. The United States tortures its alleged enemies in a much more modern way, e.g.:-

Sensory Deprivation Starvation and Thirst Sleep Deprivation Waterboarding Forced Standing Palestinian Hanging (aka Palestinian Crucifixion) Sweatboxes Sexual Abuse and Humiliation
Sometimes, the United States even hires doctors to make the torture more effective, whilst still keeping the victims alive. All very scientific, I'm sure. But it does not make it right.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/64252,news-comment,news-politics,doctors-accused-of-helping-refine-us-torture-methods

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/55630,news-comment,news-politics,italian-court-finds-23-american-us-cia-agents-guilty-of-torture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/10/manningham-buller-torture
mrgoose --

Of course there are problems in Afghanistan; of course we would prefer a better government there. But unless the U.S. truly chooses to become the "invaders" that leftists brand us, we can't install an American government, with American checks/balances/accountability there. (Even if we did, the populace would rightfully resent it. Besides, based on your distrust of all things American, you probably wouldn't believe it to be any less corrupt than Karzai's government.)

The decisions to involve ourselves in Afghanistan and Iraq were made in the past. There were arguments for and against each action, and the decisions to go to war in both countries enjoyed bipartisan support at the time each action was decided. That's all in the past, for better or worse. Now our responsibility is to stabilize the regions where we intervened (or "meddled," as you probably prefer).

People like you find a way to criticize the U.S. no matter what it does: if we don't get involved (wherever), you decry America's callous indifference. When we do get involved, you rail against our "imperialism" and "unilateralism." Once we're there, you whine and moan and snipe from the sidelines until we leave ... often too early. Then, if things collapse, you store that away as ammunition for future rants against "American irresponsibility."

Admit it: you don't care any more for the people of Afghanistan than Assange does. You're simply in this to fly your blame-America-first flag.

As for myself, in 2010 and 2012 I plan to vote for a government that gets its own house in order financially, picks future battles very carefully, and then fixes what it breaks if and when it must intervene in foreign conflicts. That's what I'm for . Are you for anything, or simply against anything and everything American?
0 Votes
+ -
Not anti-American, just anti-Neocon...
mrgoose Updated - 20th Aug 2010
@Churlish. Thank you for your valuable insight into what "people like" me think. However, I'm having difficulty reconciling your statement that begins: "Of course there are problems in Afghanistan; of course we would prefer a better government there..." with your earlier assertions regarding: "fair and equitable government"?

And you still haven't grasped the concept that being anti-war or anti-Neocon does not make one anti-American, have you?

Never mind. Your unquestioning, neo-conned-style of pseudo-patriotism has proven quite amusing at times. It's been a bit like watching a faithful-but-dumb old dog, trained to believe its world is full of enemies that must be attacked, but actually keeps biting his own master's leg by mistake.

However, I'm slightly worried that you might be starting to have doubts, especially in your paragraph that begins "The decisions to involve ourselves in Afghanistan and Iraq were made in the past..." Some might infer that you are suggesting the US made a mistake?

So here's a much more effective way to demonstrate your patriotism rather than spouting poorly-researched, pro-war bollocks on the internet. Why don't you enlist? Some say that despite spiralling unemployment they're a bit short of volunteers right now and they'll accept almost anyone:-
http://www.goarmy.com/learn.html

Like many on this forum, I'd be delighted to give you a glowing reference! lol. happy
mrgoose --

I've made the attempt to discuss this with you; the only way I feel like a "dumb old dog" is in not spotting your strategy sooner.

When the argument begins to come down to facts, or when you're forced to state your own convictions (e.g., what you're for rather than merely what you're against ), you find it easier to evade the question and dodge sideways to the next ad hominem attack.

By dismissing me as a "neocon," it's easier for you to ignore my other points. If you truly read and comprehended what I've said, you'd notice that my philosophy is quite different from the stereotypical "neocon" view of the world. For example, I don't believe it's our manifest destiny to turn all the countries of the world into little Americas; I simply believe that after the bipartisan decision was made to remove dictators and tyrants from power, then we have a responsibility to put those nations on their feet again. If corruption enters the picture during that process, then I'm right there beside you in justified anger, as well as in the desire to root it out.

I draw the line at defending/applauding the actions of someone like Assange, however. He might claim he's doing what he does to expose corruption, but (to me, at least), that end does not justify the means -- namely, placing many innocent people at risk. His claim that he merely wants someone's help in redacting the damaging parts seems more than a little disingenuous as well. He's like an arsonist who has dumped gasoline on your floor, holds a lit match ready to throw, and then asks for help in hosing down HALF of the structure ... you know, "to minimize damage."

I truly don't have time to continue this back-and-forth with you every morning, especially given your duck-and-evade rhetorical style. I'm done; I'm deleting the shortcut to this thread. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, be my guest -- feel free to gloat an unchallenged final post if that makes you feel better.
This article seems really suspicious, wonder how much he (and possibly others) are getting paid to slander wikileaks, so that they loose the public support. Me thinks the propaganda mill has been kicked into overtime... no sources, no real info, even sounds fake....
@strange_steve
if you look at the article he references the "wall street journal" as a souce of this info... and we all know what kind of paper the wsj is.... I contacted A.I. to confirm will report back when i hear something - this article just seems wrong and untrue especially since amnesty used a bunch of the info obtained from wikileaks...
0 Votes
+ -
Lazy ZDNet journalist fails to do research
mrgoose Updated - 12th Aug 2010
@ David Gewirtz.

I wonder if you read the entire "Daily Beast" article that you quoted - including page 2?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/a-western-crackdown-on-wikileaks/2/

Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review, he [Assange] tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. Media wont take responsibility. Amnesty wont. What to do?

As a journalist, David, you must be aware that the United States has continually lied about both Afghanistan and Iraq and has cajoled its allies into supporting these pointless bloodbaths. Meantime the financial cost of these wars is immense and has brought many western economies almost to their knees, including that of the US:-
http://costofwar.com/

Of course, the human cost is immeasurable and both wars have been a miserable and resounding failure. Not wishing for any more truths regarding the US's failures to see the light of day, the US authorities are now actively persecuting Wikileaks and its writers, and are leaning on the US's allies to do the same. ZDNet readers interested in a more balanced view might care to read this:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

Especially this bit:-

On Saturday a WikiLeaks spokesman, who said he uses the name Daniel Schmitt in order to protect his identity, told The Associated Press that the group had requested help from NATO to check the files prior to publication to ensure the lives of civilians were not put at risk.

"For this reason, we conveyed a request to the White House prior to the publication, asking that the International Security Assistance Force provide us with reviewers," Schmitt said. "That request remains open. However, the Pentagon has stated that it is not interested in 'harm minimization' and has not contacted us, directly, or indirectly to discuss this offer."

You might also like to read what Amnesty itself has to say regarding Wikileaks and regarding the disgraceful way the United States and its allies are failing to account for Afghani casualties:-
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/afghanistan-leak-exposes-natos-incoherent-civilian-casualty-policy-2010-07-26

In a nutshell, David, this is a US Government inspired smear, and I am disappointed and surprised that you have fallen for it!

@mrgoose
@strange_steve

It fills me with pride, that the people at large are not falling for Mr. Gewirtz's propaganda...
0 Votes
+ -
I have to agree
Economister 13th Aug 2010
@mrgoose

The blog is a bit over the top: :"nutball" and "blackmail"?. Clearly there are costs associated with screening thousands upon thousands of documents. Are we returning to McCarthyism Mr. Gewirtz? Sure looks like it.
albi, mrgoose, et al. --

It fills me with sadness that people like you ARE falling for the propaganda of Assange and his ilk.
0 Votes
+ -
Am I being punked?
bowened 30th Nov 2010
@mrgoose

Hilarious...the only time I've ever seen anyone refer to the Huffpo as a more balanced view. If you're that far left of center everything looks like right wing nuttery. I thought for a second someone had switched all the mrgoose comments with Ashton kutcher tweets...they're equally vapid
What's with the French fugitive bit? Since when is Julian Assange French?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@cj99 He's not. He's Australian. Corrected in the article. Thanks for pointing that out.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix