Christian: Many efforts are being made to regulate the Internet, regulate content on the Internet, make service providers liable and use various means to check what people are doing on the Internet and punish them if they do things that the government doesn"t like.
Henrik: And, of course, politicians have three official reasons for trying to limit the freedom on the Internet. It"s file sharing, the war on terror and child p.o.r.nography. But often we come to suspect that there are many more reasons, for instance the interest of trying to keep things secret, to keep people out of the discussion. It could also be to limit the freedom of citizen journalism and stuff like that. Of course, they can"t say it officially, because that would be disastrous. But we really have the impression that that"s the case.
Christian: It"s very much all part of the same trend. This morning I was at a seminar organized by the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe). The seminar was about Hungary, where they just introduced a new media law where everybody, including bloggers, must be registered before they"re allowed to express themselves. Therefore, Hungarians will have a small administrative body appointed by the ruling party that can decide if somebody"s saying things that they don"t want to be said and give them unlimited fines for it. And, of course, that is not how it should be in a Western democracy or in any democracy for that matter. I think this is the underlying problem in society. The Internet and new information technology have opened up fantastic possibilities for democracy, for transparency, for citizen partic.i.p.ation in the democratic process, as well as fantastic opportunities for the spread of culture. All the culture of the world is just one click away. That"s something fantastic. If politicians had invented it, they would be so proud of it. Now it sort of happened by itself and instead the politicians are trying to stop it. As with any change in society, the winners of the last century will either be the new losers, or will have to at least adapt their business to the established mode of governance. n.o.body wants to change, especially if you"re the king of the hill, you want everything to remain exactly as it is. That"s why conflicts are erupting everywhere. In the end, I know we will win, "We" being the ones standing for openness, sharing, etc., because the technology makes that a historical necessity. I know full well how unpopular it makes you with more or less everybody if you talk about historical necessities. I"m sure that will happen, but whether it happens in five years or fifty will depend on political decisions.
Henrik: It"s very interesting because in Parliament there have been issues about Iran, Cuba and other countries where the government muzzles the opposition. Iran and Cuba are just using the technology that we have here, because our governments have demanded the possibility of monitoring them.
Christian: I think that these double standards are very annoying, but very important. For example, take Swedish Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, member of the Swedish Liberal party since the 1980s. When she was a member of this Parliament, she was very good at standing up for freedom of speech, freedom of whatever, etc. She was the first person to criticize China for censoring the Internet and blocking certain sites, etc. That"s when she was a parliamentarian. Now she"s a commissioner. One of the very first directives she proposed was for the introduction of censorship on the Internet and she"s using child p.o.r.nography to break open the doors. It"s very easy to criticize China for censoring the Internet, but once this alleged liberal person was in power, she tried to do the exact same thing. You see this in most Member States. A lot of parties are quite good as long as they are in opposition. It"s not really a left/right issue. But then when they get into government, they want more control, less transparency. I think that is part of the way power corrupts. It"s a very positive development for citizens to have access to a technology that can be used as a counterforce. It"s even more positive that some people, like the WikiLeaks members, are taking advantage of that possibility. For this reason, all of us in the Pirate Party see WikiLeaks as real heroes.
elise: What is the link between the Pirate Party and the actions of Birgitta Jonsdottir in Iceland? And between Iceland and Sweden?
Christian: This IMMI thing is absolutely brilliant. If we could transform that into European modern media initiative, that would be really great. At least it"s a very good thing that Iceland is setting a positive example. It"s exactly what the Pirate Party would want to see happen. We feel that the openness of society is threatened. It"s ironic because we have this marvelous technology that"s opened up the possibility, but instead has led to political repression.
Exactly the same thing happened five hundred years ago with the printing press. Up until then, only scribes in monasteries could copy books. Gutenberg came along, it became much cheaper by the standards of those days and pretty much the first thing that happened was that various governments wanted to regulate it. The Church wanted to regulate the printing press so that heretics wouldn"t be allowed to use it to spread things like Lutheranism or whatever they would consider even worse. The word "copyright" first appeared in the U.K., under Henry the VII. I think it was one of his daughters who wanted to make sure that only their side and their political struggle got to print books. So they gave a monopoly to the London Company of station the guild for printers, and they got the copyright, the right to make copies on provision that they could only print the right kind of religious text.
When technology opens up a new possibility for ordinary citizens, you would expect the old establishment to try to do whatever they can to stop it and maintain its own privilege. We can expect them to fail completely in the long run, because we know what happened to the printing press. My hope is that we"ll be able to make that same transition to the Internet society and the information society quicker and cheaper, especially in terms of lives. That is the goal of the Pirate Party: avoid a large number of heretics being sent to the gallows before society accepts the change.
elise: What are your daily activities like here?
Henrik: I bury Christian in papers and act as anything from political advisor to the guy who gets Christian his sandwiches when he is in a meeting. Christian also wants me to keep blogging, as I have one of the biggest political blogs in Sweden, if not the biggest.
Christian: I blog as well. I think it"s a good indication on how helpful the new technology is, because the job of a parliamentarian, whether here in the European Parliament or in national parliament, doesn"t really have any power. The power is on a national level with the government or at the European Commission level.
Henrik: Let"s not forget the Council.
Christian: True, but I would say primarily with the Commission. But at least a parliamentarian has access to some power; is closer to it and can find out more about what"s going on. For me, both on the European Union and national level the parliamentarian is the link between ordinary citizens and the ones actually in power. However, I think that a blog is very useful both ways. Henrik and I blog about things happening here. Some journalist might pick it up. There"s no blog that can compete with mainstream media in terms of reach. Still, for people who are interested, the blogs have much more s.p.a.ce to devote to one single issue at a time. If you"re very interested in something, you"ll find more information on the blogs than in mainstream media. But on the other hand, when some proposal comes along, it comes as a white paper or green paper or whatever color paper from the commission, often very technical. It"s always like that in politics: the devil is in the details... always. It can be very difficult to spot the nasty things, if you just read it. To be able to take that and put it on the blog and say "This is what the commissioner is proposing. I"ll report on this. Do you have any comments?" People who are interested or are specialized can give feedback. I find it extremely useful.
Henrik: It"s very interesting because much of this work is actually intertwined with WikiLeaks. For instance, the SWIFT agreement about transferring information about European bank transactions to the terrorist hunters in the United States. Parliament was opposed, but national governments turned on parliamentarians and the Parliament had to approve the agreement or adjust its modifications. Afterward, we had found out, thanks to the "Cablegate" telegrams, that the Swedish government was very much involved in the matter. Just like for ACTA, which might infringe the liberty on the Internet. This agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. In the end, the Parliament will have to say yes or no to it, but for a long time the only way to get information on these doc.u.ments was via WikiLeaks.
Christian: Even for me as a parliamentarian, I had to rely on leaks to obtain information. It"s obviously an aspect of the European Union that I find completely unacceptable. But sttill, it"s the reality of it all.
elise: What is the link between politics and what WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, or other similar groups do? You think that they have a political agenda?
Henrik: They have political consequences. Many people say that a.s.sange is a Leftist or that he hates the U.S. or whatever. I don"t think that"s the case. I think he"s just in it for the open information and transparency mission. That, of course, it will have its consequences. The video Collateral Murder was terrible for the United States PR-wise. And now "Cablegate." All of this has political consequences. But you can also see the openness ideology behind WikiLeaks. I would say it"s more philosophical than political. It"s some kind of purity when it comes to democracy. The other day I wrote on my blog and reminded people that the key to this story that we must always remember is that it"s WikiLeaks that is providing the truth. It might be an inconvenient or embarra.s.sing truth, but it"s WikiLeaks who is providing it. It"s the politicians and their functionaries who are lying and trying to cover things up. It"s extremely important to have that single thought in mind.
elise: Do you think that Julian a.s.sange is a "Warrior of Truth"?
Henrik: Yes.
Christian: At the moment, of course, Americans consider him to be a Leftist. I don"t believe that myself. For instance, if you take it from the green perspective, since we"re in the Green Group, among the doc.u.ments they did publish, a lot of them were about an environmental scandal in the Ivory Coast where big companies had basically taken lots of really toxic stuff and just dumped it somewhere. From a green perspective, that leak, when it happened, would have been very popular politically, because it highlighted green issues. But WikiLeaks also published these "Climate-Gate" e-mails that were a lot less popular within the Green Group. To me, that strongly indicates that Mr. a.s.sange himself is just in it for the truth. He doesn"t pick sides, instead he shows everything and from all angles.
Henrik: A person with very strong integrity, I would say.
elise: Do you think he would make a good politician and get into politics?
Christian: No. No.
Henrik: No. No. No.
elise: Why not?
Christian: He"s a good speaker. He has interesting political things to say. I don"t think he"d be at all interested in the day-to-day compromising that they maintain in politics. I see him as an activist by heart, representing certain ideas. I don"t think he"d enjoy being a politician.
Henrik: If he should have such a carreer, it would be as General Secretary of the UN with a responsibility to the Internet and open communications, etc. That might work, but the day-to-day work, it"s like swimming in gelatin.
elise: So do you think that WikiLeaks and other movements like this must or should have an implication in a traditional way in politics or not? Is it possible?
Henrik: It"d have huge implications.
Christian: Yes, every single release has huge implications in that area. For instance, at the national level, we had one telegram detailing how the Swedish ministers went to the American Emba.s.sy, how they talked in detail about how Sweden should introduce certain laws to make the United States happy. It was in one of the cables. That is in itself very interesting political information. It confirmed what we in the Pirate Party had been saying, "Look, the Swedish government, they"re just a puppet on a string for the Americans." When we said it before, we sounded pretty much like conspiracy theorists, at least to many people. But now it"s confirmed in an official cable from the American Emba.s.sy, so of course that has implications. But hopefully, I think perhaps an even more interesting long-term effect would be that if politicians all over start to realize that they can"t really keep anything secret, that could, hopefully in the long run, mean that they become honest out of necessity.
Henrik: But if they can"t get away with it, they have to.
Christian: We"re only at the beginning of the process.
elise: Let"s talk about Julian a.s.sange. Where did you meet him?
Christian: I met him once in Brussels, in June 2010. He came to speak at a seminar organized by the progressive group. Afterwards, lots of people wanted to talk to him. I wanted to talk to him as well. We wanted to tell him that the Swedish Pirate Party was prepared to offer a.s.sistance to WikiLeaks, technical a.s.sistance with service, etc. I mentioned that very briefly, but then the journalist did an interview with the two of us. That was really all there was time for. He then went to Sweden and visited the Swedish Pirate Party. We helped him. I didn"t meet him then, he met Rick Falkvinge, who was our party leader then, and Anna Troberg, who is our party leader now. They had dinner together. This was really mostly to confirm the fact that we, the Pirate Party, would a.s.sist with some bandwidth.
We"re just one of many organizations and people a.s.sisting WikiLeaks in this way. This was primarily about the technical help we wanted to give. But, of course, yes, we do support WikiLeaks in every way. When people like you ask about WikiLeaks, I"m quite happy to say that I like it.
elise: What about a.s.sange?
Christian: You have to be really focused in order to become a global icon. And he probably was not at all particularly interested in all the social stuff that surrounds whatever project he"s dealing with.
Henrik: You often see that in people who are very focused on a specific project, it doesn"t have to be connected with the Internet, but often they do not have perfect social skills. To many people, that"s a bit irritating. For me, working with Libertarians and Pirates, I"m quite used to that and have learned to appreciate even goofy people for what they do.
Christian: I supposed that I"d probably cross paths with him again. The Pirate Party"s a political project, as Henrik said, the political arm of the Internet.
THE HEART OF THE CAVE.
I am responsible for everything except for my very responsibility.
Jean-Paul Sartre.
25.
FAMILY HERITAGE.
Julian a.s.sange hadn"t met his biological father before he was twenty-five years of age, and since then, he"s only met him a few times. John Shipton was a student activist of the 1960s whom Christine a.s.sange fell in love with during an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in Sydney. Today, Shipton is an architect who has been described by his son Julian as a rebel spirit with a high logical and dispa.s.sionate intellect. A close friend described him as "a mirror shining back at Julian."
Paternity, maternity, and being in a relationship are values that Julian has experienced in a particular manner: an absent father, an artist/activist mother, a stepfather who treated him like an adult, constantly moving, a failed relationship after two years, a custody battle that lasted over five years and a lost son that was found again.
All these experiences left their mark on him as the child he was deep down inside. For The First Post, psychoa.n.a.lyst Coline Covington explained: "The only stable factor in Julian a.s.sange"s early life was his mother. Given this background, it would hardly be surprising if mother and son did not have a strong connection, especially during their years of hiding..." In December of 2010, Christine decided to go to London to re-establish a connection with her son after she learned of his arrest. On the court steps she declared: "I"m re-connected with him again. I"ve got the connection." Covington continued: "Without parents who were able to set limits and recognize their son"s vulnerability, there was no stopping Julian"s omnipotent behaviour. [...] When the mother idolises her child, this early experience of omnipotence remains unmediated and the child"s narcissistic bond to the mother is not broken. Mother and son continue to harbour an exclusive relationship from which the father is absent. This can lead in [...] having fleeting relationships with women, as a way of defending against being engulfed by the mother."
Throughout his relationships, Julian has shown the importance he gives to women in his life. He needs them to balance him out, they are present on his path, but he refuses to get attached to them. Here Covington sees a certain vengeance on his mother who probably left him too young, compounded with the pain he felt after the break up with his first wife.
The psychoa.n.a.lyst also sees a paternal influence. First, in his quest for truth as a desire to intrude in his parents" room, getting involved in a relationship that he"s never had, but also in his desire to a.s.sume the role of the father and take exclusive possession of the mother. But when it came to impregnation, Julian felt he has some legitimacy. Covington concluded: "In his desire for unprotected s.e.x, a.s.sange is a.s.serting his right to impregnate women even against their will. But these are not women he has a serious relationship with. Like his unknown father, he too will presumably disappear." Julian has a personal mission that cannot be hampered by family constraints.
Rumors circulated about Julian having fathered many children. On November 22 2006, he posted a picture on his blog showing a little girl of one or two years old with the comment: "Those eyes All the pink ribbons in the world can"t hide them." It has also been said that Julian had a liaison with a French woman who gave birth to a child in 2010. If these rumors are true, these mothers have stayed pretty discrete since Julian gained notoriety, as they could have come out of the shadows. The media would have thrown themselves onto information like this, calling for retribution. Two scenarios seem plausible: they don"t have anything to say about their ex-lover"s behavior or the resentment isn"t worth the media circus they"d have to put up with if they would have divulged their stories.
But what if, despite his mission, we were to find out that Julian a.s.sange a.s.sumed his role as a father?
Julian"s son Daniel thinks that his dad"s best quality is his desire to share his knowledge and talk to him without treating him like a child. In a long interview for the investigative site crickey.com.au in September 2010, Daniel said: "The one thing I found that I appreciated most was that he wouldn"t treat me like a child when it came to intellectual concepts: he would speak to me as though he were really trying to get me to grasp the fullness of an idea." Daniel continued, "I think that really helped me a lot in realizing the nature of reality."
Daniel a.s.sange was born on January 26 1990. He"s a programmer for a small marketing process company that handles search engine optimization. He holds a Bachelor"s Degree from the University of Melbourne in Genetics and finished his studies in the same time as his father. No longer interested in genetics, he got into IT. He loves New Age music, science fiction, animated films and manga. He"s a well-read atheist and punctuates his thoughts with humor on his blog lemma.org.
During his globetrotting phase, up until the launch of WikiLeaks, Julian was not very present in Daniel"s life, as father-son relations were circ.u.mstantially strained during these years. Only in 2007 did Julian contact his son to ask him to join the organization. Daniel didn"t really believe in the concept and so, he refused. Since then he hasn"t had any contact with his father, but is proud of him and stands behind him. According to Daniel, his father mainly wanted to protect him. "As for him not contacting me following that, it"s probably at least in part an attempt to protect me [...] If it was known that I was the son and directly involved in some way, there was a likelihood of a direct retaliation, and my father was quite concerned about such things." He believes Julian is very intelligent and is forced to face all kinds of difficulties dealing with these kind of people and often feels frustrated working with someone who isn"t capable of thinking at his level and grasping concepts he seems to get intuitively. He also believes that he"s always been interested in political activism in general, but has always had more of an affinity for science and philosophy, as well as the pursuit of higher knowledge and the idea that this knowledge should be made accessible to everyone. WikiLeaks is the culmination of all these concepts.
Daniel shared his thoughts on the Swedish affair. In August 2010, on a friend"s Facebook page he said, "That man does have a way of making a lot of female enemies." The New York Post used this message in one of its articles without personally meeting Daniel. Confronted by the media"s behavior, he criticized the ethics of the newspaper and would rather give his own opinion. "It looks to me that it"s just some sort of cultural misunderstanding or general social failure on the part of my father, or the women, that has led to the situation."
Today, as an adult observing his father"s work, Daniel says: "His actions as a personal individual and his actions in a grand political sense are completely disconnected things, and they should be considered in that sense."
26.
a.s.sANGE"S SHADOWS.
July 12, 2006: The truth inside and outside the page The truth is not found on the page, but is a wayward sprite that bursts forth from the readers" mind for reasons of its own.
Julian a.s.sange likes to philosophize on themes he holds dear. In July 2006, on his blog IQ.ORG, he elaborated theories on the subjective truth of Justice faced with the logical reality of an axiom: You could show irrefutably that (A=>B) and (B=>C) and (C=>D) and Justice would agree, but then, when you claimed coup de grace, A=>D irrevocably, Justice would shake its head and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told. Transitivity is enabled when Justice decides for emotional reasons A=>D *feels nice*.
He believes that truth is logical and must rely on these a.s.sumptions otherwise it would become "a surging sea of smashed wood, flotsam and drowning sailors."
But it"s this same transitivity that is used many times by all conspiracy theorists when it comes to Julian a.s.sange and WikiLeaks. Many of them elaborate possible links between the organization and political, military and financial conspiracies.
For example, the United States and Israel have been leading a global campaign against Iran for years and want to sway world opinion in any way possible. (A=>B). The diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks shake up world opinion and reveal truths that some didn"t dare announce publicly about Iran"s nuclear tests. (B=>C). Shouldn"t WikiLeaks be a way for the United States and Israel to achieve their goals? (A=>C).
As well, the site of Wayne Madsen, former U.S. Navy officer, now a journalist and commentator on national security issues, a.s.sessed a CIA project of twenty million dollars whose goal was to provide the means to Chinese dissidents to simulate attacks on American IT systems coming from China to increase the fear of risking an electronic war. (A=>B). And so WikiLeaks, whose goal is to broadcast confidential information from states, including the United States, bases its communication on the majority representation of Chinese dissidents in its advisory board. (B=>C). The vagueness surrounding this board and the debates on national security weakened by the Internet could make one believe that WikiLeaks is in fact part of a project sponsored by the CIA aimed at justifying them having taken measures to restrict freedom on the Internet. (A=>C).
This transitivity axiom gives way to all kinds of theories about WikiLeaks. Aren"t they supposed to be the truth? If some theories seem absurd, others will only be denied by history. One thing is for sure: nothing is being done to diminish the mysteries that weigh down on Julian so that overactive imaginations and creativity can link facts freely.
The most doc.u.mented a.s.sumption remains the relation between WikiLeaks and George Soros, businessman and philanthropist at the head of the Open Society Inst.i.tute (OSI), an organization that promotes democracy around the world. Wayne Madsen has established several coincidences linking the actions of this American billionaire with those of WikiLeaks.
A leak revealing the campaign data of Republican Senator Norm Coleman has been said to be largely beneficial to his adversary Democrat Senator Al Franken, supported by Soros.
In May 2009, a member of the OSI partic.i.p.ated at the European conference on media and new communication services together with the Icelandic Minister of Education, Science and Culture. It"s only after this conference that the idea of the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative) came to Julian a.s.sange.
The list of allegations is long: in January 2008, WikiLeaks published the bank statements of 1,600 clients of the Julius Baer Group, the biggest Swiss securities management bank. These clients had accounts in a branch on the Cayman Islands. The bank took legal action to retract its claim faced with the impossibility of suppressing the information spread via mirror sites. This bad situation at the Julius Baer Group was apparently an opportunity for a takeover bid from the Goldman Sachs bank, which is linked to the Quantum Fund of George Soros.
Even if the shortcuts seem quick, Julian"s sole defense would be to say of Wayne Madsen: "He seems to be another case [the first being John Young, author"s note] of someone who was fantastic a few years ago, but recently has started to see conspiracies everywhere. Both cases probably age related." John Young is seventy-four, while Wayne Madsen is fifty-seven. It"s surprising to hear this from someone who has built a system of truth to fight the conspiracies that he sees everywhere.
Julian a.s.sange hates being contradicted and prefers brushing his opponents aside. He also hates justifying himself. Psychoa.n.a.lyst Coline Covington noticed, "while a.s.serting his innocence, a.s.sange accuses others around him of abusing [their] power. He refers to an "espionage indictment made secretly against me" and a "smear campaign" launched against him. His accusations show a paranoia, which only confirms his anxiety that his own attacks are being turned against him. [...] He can then become the martyr son who was abused by his father a hero and a victim at the same time."
This range of paranoia can be detected in Julian"s interviews. He told the motherjones.com investigation site in June 2010 details about how six men broke into the residence he was staying at in Nairobi, Kenya and threw him to the ground. The residence"s security heard him cry out and came to chase away the attackers. He told the journalist that they had come for him without explaining why.
Several times he reported the case of an ambush carried out in 2009 against one of his a.s.sociates in Luxembourg. In a covered parking lot, a man with an English accent dressed like "James Bond" and therefore supposed to be British secret services had apparently asked questions on the organization and pressed his a.s.sociate to divulge more "over coffee." There again, Julian kept mysterious. Just like the time when he sensed two agents were following him on a flight to Iceland or when he disguised himself in London as an old lady to escape from "other agents."
The problem with all these stories is that they can rarely be verified and are sometimes muddy or contradictory once other statements are made. By ensuring the communication of a business as innovative and controversial as WikiLeaks on his own, Julian has unfortunately not been a stranger to contradiction.
Even in his choice of alliances, the leader of WikiLeaks surprised people.
First, on his advisory board, most of the names mentioned have had some sort of relations with U.S. government inst.i.tutions (NED, Radio Free Asia, etc.). Finally, these relations turned out to be null and void following the vague declarations of the main interested parties. So why boast these alliances at all?
The main goal of the advisory board was to boost the respectability of the organization, but to attract whose benevolence? Who is rea.s.sured by these kinds of relations?
Then there are the WikiLeaks members. A rumor, confirmed afterward in an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson in December 2010, justified the involvement of Israel Shamir with WikiLeaks a propos relations with the Russian press.
On numerous occasions, this freelance journalist was called on his negativistic and anti-Semitic remarks. How can Julian allow such an alliance? This is the same man who, during his speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum 2010, denounced the United States and touched lightly on the n.a.z.is by comparing the slogans at Auschwitz "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work will make you free") to Guantanamo Bay "Honor Bound To Defend Freedom."
According to a survey by Swedish public radio, Israel Shamir was responsible for selecting the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables and distributing them to his contacts in the Russian press. How could one uphold neutrality when entrusting the intermediation to such controversial people?
Furthermore, Julian"s choice of press partners has often been criticized by a certain opinion that regretted the Western orientation of these major press groups and by the partners themselves who have had a tough time understanding his changes in orientation, personal agreements with new partners, stormy responses and a need to control everything.
The task wasn"t easy, Daniel Domscheit-Berg said when leaving the organization: "It is too much work, too much responsibility and ultimately too much power. It"s very hard to argue against the notion that WikiLeaks has a certain measure of political power at the moment."
The foundations of WikiLeaks have indeed evolved in three years" time. In 2006, the founding idea was based on a technological initiative, whose functioning relied on the foundations of Wikipedia and this famous "wisdom of crowds," described by James Surowiecki in his eponymous best-selling book. Knowledge that was totally decentralized, open, independent, with a shared ethic and didn"t rely on any inst.i.tution. The difficulties, pressure and ambition very quickly lead to a centralization of decisions that was more and more personalized, a unilateral review of the content with an editorialized broadcast. Even though the base remains the same, the core of WikiLeaks was to broadcast information from sources as best as possible and to the greatest possible number.
But who were these infamous sources?
Julian contacted whistleblowers. When he fought alongside his mother for the custody of his son Daniel, he campaigned within the management to find informers. Later, he rubbed shoulders with a whistleblowers" a.s.sociation, Whistleblowers Australia. a.s.sange knew people who, just like Ellsberg, realize one day that his professional daily life, which fascinated him for so long, was turning into an increasingly unbearable situation. He created WikiLeaks for them, for a Rudolf Elmer at the brink of incomprehension at work who decided to denounce the fiscal frauds orchestrated by his bank, the Julius Baer Group.
The system wanted to be open to all these informers by guaranteeing them security and anonymity. And it has been on these two points that WikiLeaks is subjected to the most attacks.
Open to all without any guarantees of where it came from. Just like that, information could be rejected for objective or subjective reasons. And information could even be submitted to WikiLeaks with hidden motives. An interview on November 29 2010, on the American television station PBS with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, revealed his expert point of view. By a.n.a.lyzing the content of the leaks and the orientation of possible impacts, Brzezinski, who is still one of the best informed men in the United States, declared: "I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives."
Moreover, this idea can be traced back in history. Former U.S. Air Force colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty, known for his CIA activities (he inspired the character Mr. X in the Oliver Stone film, JFK), said about Daniel Ellsberg: "There is another category of writers and self-proclaimed authority on the subjects of secrecy, intelligence, and containment. This man is the suave, professional parasite who gains a reputation as a real reporter by disseminating the sc.r.a.ps and "Golden Apples" thrown to him by the great men who use him. His writer seldom knows and rarely cares that many of the sc.r.a.ps from which he draws his material have been planted, that they are controlled leaks, and that he is being used, and glorified as he is being used, by the inside secret intelligence community."
By ensuring the security and anonymity of sources, John Young defended the idea that there was no security on the Internet, and Wayne Madsen went so far as saying that Tor, the anonymity system used by WikiLeaks, had some flaws that did in fact reveal personal information. However, government forces have not identified the only sources revealed from the site"s leaks. Rudolf Elmer made himself known in 2005 by handing over his files to the Swiss press before contacting WikiLeaks in 2008, while Bradley Manning was denounced by an Internet forum correspondent.
The only real thing Julian could be accused of was having taken the reins of WikiLeaks" destiny to satisfy his personal ambition of managing his business, something many people agreed on: his partners, his first supporters like John Young, some a.s.sociates like Daniel Domscheit-Berg and maybe others like the mysterious WikiLeaks insider who denounced the internal actions of WikiLeaks with e-mails sent to Cryptome.
His goal was to move up higher and faster by any means, a man who blogged about a poem by the brothers Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (executed on July 19, 1953 for espionage against the United States): "Even so, we did what we believed in:.