Doc.u.ments arrived from a contact in China. The subject: Somalia.
In June 2006, the East African country was subjected to a series of battles between the Islamic Courts Union and the members of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, an alliance between warlords and the Somali government supported by Washington. The Islamic Courts Union won the battle and took control of the capital, Mogadishu.
At the end of December 2006, the Ethiopian army intervened and the Islamic Courts Union fled the capital. The army then took control of the majority of the area and the transitional government declared itself the national government in practice, but not officially.
A WikiLeaks member wrote the first leak in an academic writing style. He explained: The doc.u.ment details strategies to undermine and defeat rival factions and intervening powers, including a.s.sa.s.sinations and cooperation with criminals. The secrecy of the doc.u.ment is underlined by its final point: "Whosoever leaks this information and is found guilty should be shot." The unscrupulousness of some of the strategies advocated is presumably the reason for such extreme secrecy. But if it can be taken at face value as a statement of strategy and policy, it throws doubt on US claims that the Union of Islamic Courts is a terrorist organization planning suicide bombings in Kenya and Ethiopia, and demonstrates that the situation in Somalia is more complicated than US, UN or Islamist spokespeople would have us believe.
He was plagued by doubt when he wrote his article and admits to it in a message to WikiLeaks members: "I found it quite difficult to write this. I wasn"t sure what approach to use. I ended up writing something long." Actually, the article is fourteen-pages long.
He found it difficult to deal with the information and hard facts, and how to understand it in its context. "To discuss the doc.u.ment thoroughly, I think you have to provide some background beforehand. I also think people should be informed about the entire matter. Unfortunately, this means we have to take a detour and cannot directly relate to the information in our doc.u.ment. There"s a point about the strategy of the Islamic Courts Union since 2005 and they only became a military force as of 2006."
The key idea of WikiLeaks was to broadcast the leak received. The author of the article continued in the introduction: We have to start with the doc.u.ment"s relevance, which means going back and discussing the background, then discuss the doc.u.ment and its significance, which means that the structure is a bit unpleasant. I don"t know what else to do.
The leaked doc.u.ment itself meant nothing without knowing about the existing political interactions between Somalia and allied and/or enemy countries. However, plunged into a political reality, it suddenly became more difficult to form a point of view. The editor felt obliged to opt for a message like "it"s more complicated than that," because he couldn"t find a "friendly" doctrine in this doc.u.ment. And reasonably so, as he didn"t want to glorify a movement with an Islamic doctrine or denounce it as a terrorist movement when that was not quite the case. It would only throw fuel on the fire of American propaganda.
On December 19 2006, WikiLeaks members received a message from a communications expert who advised them on publishing the leak and its content. He advised them on captivating the readers to make sure they read until the end: use a punchy style and tone from the beginning, add any possible connections to recent or landmark events, involve the readers with questions and optimize legibility by avoiding obscure acronyms.
The choice of words became a delicate and probing one. "I mentioned the part "should be shot," but only a few times. Should it be used more to be sensational? Should we mention it less to protect potential victims in Somalia? As we discussed, the time of worrying about consequences has probably past no matter what they are, but we need to consider it," he said. WikiLeaks decided that the moment of truth had arrived. Its members were well aware of the risks resulting from these activities for the protagonists linked to the doc.u.ment. The choice between protection and truth was made.
How to write this doc.u.ment and who was going to read it? Of course the goal was to provide quality information, but to whom? To journalists or citizens? How to introduce the raw doc.u.ment? Writing meant communicating and to communicate one needed to have a style. But at that moment WikiLeaks did not yet know where to publish its doc.u.ments, who the site was for and what would happen to the hosted information.
When the author suggested his article to other WikiLeaks members, he included footnotes, specifying that they help members understand his references, but didn"t necessarily need to appear in the published version. This would provide sources for this article, except Wikipedia ones which were quite often journalistic ones taken from other sources like the BBC, reputed for its quality of journalism and investigations.
The gap was closing between WikiLeaks and journalism, as it was indeed about an article, which to be understood in its entirety, not only required references and understanding a context already explained by journalists, but also a style of writing that took readers into account.
The doc.u.ment was approved, and at the end of December, WikiLeaks members sent their first doc.u.ment on Somalia to selected partners: CounterPunch and the others. But not a single one of them published the article.
Julian was surprised because he didn"t get an approval or a rejection. The end of the year is always a bad time and the text is just too long. Moreover, WikiLeaks is not recognized as a regular supplier of articles, so Julian needed to find an intermediary.
However, on January 3 2007, the first article was posted on a blog run by Steven Aftergood, the editor of the "Secrecy News" newsletter since 1991 and the Director of the Federation of American Scientists. Backed up by the First Amendment of the United States Const.i.tution, (a law that prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press or the right to peaceable a.s.sembly), he fights against the American government"s arbitrary cla.s.sification of doc.u.ments said to be secret. He published sensitive information or supposedly secret information on his site. He claimed to contribute in this way to the proper workings of democracy, all while pointing out that he was not an enemy of the government.
He didn"t agree with WikiLeaks" editorial policy and stated this directly on his blog: "To me, transparency is a means to an end, and that end is an invigorated political life, accountable inst.i.tutions, opportunities for public engagement. For them, transparency and exposure seem to be ends in themselves." He declined getting involved in the advisory board by divulging certain pa.s.sages of e-mails sent to him from members of the organization.
He did however support their actions by linking to this first post about Somalia on his blog.
As of January 4 2007, WikiLeaks received e-mails from journalists who had heard about the site. It was the start of a series of requests for information from the press, mainly independent journalists who worked for scientific papers, but also correspondents for the Federal Times, Technology Daily and Wired News.
They noticed that the blog posting aroused a lot of interest with the press and had to very quickly prepare answers to all these questions. The requests mainly concerned them and WikiLeaks, and very little on the information they"d made available.
Although they enjoyed the benefits that putting these doc.u.ments online brought them, especially for their visibility, the risks that could ensue scared them: government surveillance entailing possible prosecution that would require the help of lawyers. In fact, they still didn"t have a sizeable advisory board to respond to attacks. At the beginning, they decided to follow up on questions case-by-case, but the task took too much time and the questions were often repet.i.tive. They decided to prepare a formatted e-mail listing all of WikiLeaks" ambitions and opted to write and send out a press release.
John Young was disappointed in Steven Aftergood"s att.i.tude. He shouldn"t have announced that the wikileaks.org site was active or that the first doc.u.ment was freely accessible. Aftergood released the information, followed by comments against WikiLeaks" main goal. In fact, he made dismissive comments about WikiLeaks and suggested that his own activity was more honorable and respectable. "Reporters are compet.i.tors of WikiLeaks as any keepers of secrets and peddlers of inside information. They want to appear to be "responsible" arbiters of what information gets published," said John Young. He added: "Some will promise one thing to get information and do the opposite for publication." He also provides raw information like WikiLeaks on his own site. The disagreement was played out at the editorial level.
Young was really angry at Aftergood for having divulged internal information to WikiLeaks while the organization contacted him in good faith. In turn, Aftergood answered publicly by accusing them of leaking unfiltered and, therefore, dangerous information. On the other hand, in asking to join the advisory board, the team referred to John Young and Daniel Ellsberg. Aftergood had now become "dangerous" with the information he"d received. John Young warned the organization against using private information as a means of recruitment.
The agents of government authorities examined the inside of WikiLeaks through journalists, supporters, donors and members of the advisory board, customary for people who wanted to const.i.tute an opposing force. They had to expect lies, piracy, treachery and all other methods used to eliminate dissidents. They also had to expect mockery, insults, ridicule, admiration and skepticism. John Young believed they had to be as discreet as possible or else WikiLeaks would be doomed. Anonymity had to be kept in terms of all communication with the press and potential recruits.
Young was the one who registered the domain name "wikileaks.org." The site name was registered with the NSI Network Solutions who managed domain names. As an owner, his details were on the WHOIS lists (literally who is, a database of existing sites accessible to anyone) of this private company. The less information they had on WikiLeaks members, the better.
WikiLeaks members panicked faced with the sudden interest of journalists, as they weren"t really ready for this. They answered reporters by justifying themselves as being mostly mathematicians.
They were asked whether the doc.u.ments in their possession were issued directly from Western governments but that was not the case. Were Western journalists looking for a scandal at all costs?
They received replies from sites like POGO (Project On Government Oversight, an independent American non-profit organization that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct on its site pogo.org in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government), known for its critical views. They asked them for their support, followed by a request to join the advisory board. Journalists sent them their articles on WikiLeaks and were satisfied with the first responses. However, they needed to try and be more careful in their communication, as they had to monitor the use of their declaration. The proposed improvement was to answer questions before they were asked.
On January 5 2007, they decided to publish a FAQ as quickly as possible to answer questions not yet asked and set people straight on some exaggerated and erroneous interpretations already published.
At the same time, WikiLeaks members noticed that somebody had registered the domain name wikileaks.net. In the beginning, always very open, they thought that this person wanted to help them and become a relay. It was Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, who rushed to reserve this name in order to deliver a commercial blow.
They also received an offer from a young start-up that suggested creating an online comment tool. Although they had enough expertise to create what they needed, they didn"t shoot down the offer and remained very courteous. Any kind of help was welcome because there was tons of work.
They got an answer to "Question advisory board" from the coordinator of the Freedom House site, a non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world. However, it was mainly funded by the NED17 and had been accused of being a cover for the CIA.
Freedom House found the request interesting and said they would think about it.
Julian sent the e-mail request without consulting the other members with the idea of testing a foundation he considered a bit "conspiratorial." They could very well end up a victim of leaks on WikiLeaks! Knowing your enemies from the inside to better fight them was a well-known manipulation technique used by strategists. And Julian was one of them. The knowledge of the world of organizations, their connections and sponsors were needed to successfully carry out his actions. Who was lying? Who was telling the truth? Who was transparent? Who was being secretive in order to clog up the inner workings of government? The links between power, foundations and organizations had to be untangled to make the right choices.
Sometimes, the answers on joining the advisory board were quite surprising. Julian informed the other WikiLeaks members of the e-mail, then commented on their answer in these words: "Disarming. FH along with NED are notorious US State/CIA money launderers. The goal is not to get them to accept, although that might be rather interesting, but to make them feel we are on the same "side" by the early approach and enemy of my enemy is my friend."
On January 7 2007, the members made the final touches to the WikiLeaks site and asked again for help because they were swamped. They prepared the launch by setting up a network of phone correspondents throughout the world to answer the press.
On the same day, Julian sent around an e-mail that summed up the WikiLeaks organization: "If it stays small like it is now (a budget of USD 50,000 a year and volunteers), the result would be interesting yet far from everyone"s ambitions. Ideally, the goal should be to start with "heavy artillery" and antic.i.p.ate a budget of USD 5 million before the end of July."
John Young fiercely answered: Announcing a 5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam. This amount could not be needed so soon except for suspect purposes. Soros will kick you out of the office with such over-reaching. Foundations are flooded with big talkers making big requests flaunting famous names and promising spectacular results.
I"d say the same about the alleged 1.1 million doc.u.ments ready for leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don"t believe the number. So far, one doc.u.ment, of highly suspect provenance. [...]
At the moment there is no reason to believe WL can deliver on its promises. Big talk no action, the skeptics say.
BTW, the biggest crooks brag overmuch of how ethical their operations are. Avoid ethical promises, period, they"ve been used too often to fleece victims. Demonstrate sustained ethical behavior, don"t preach/peddle it.
The CIA would be the most likely 5M funder. Soros is suspected of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering for such payola.
Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior so far fits the pattern.
If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, spy contractors, other nation"s spy agencies, whole countries, are falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But compet.i.tion is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the fleecers work in concert.
In solidarity to f.u.c.k "em all.
Right away John Young decided to publish on Cryptome all the e-mails he"d received to unburden himself of the responsibility of WikiLeaks" future.
There were internal secrets as well, since the members of the mailing list couldn"t check the existence and number of leaks received.
The curtain fell, and John Young left the stage. The team tried to persuade him to stay on, but it was too late. Julian wrote him a personal e-mail to bring him back into the fold, but he was lost to WikiLeaks. Ambition is scary.
13.
JULIAN AS SEEN BY eLISE.
a.s.sange and the ladies.
Published on November 30, 2010 by sophoxLeave a comment.
Single for five months, I hesitated signing up for a dating site like Emetic or more locally, Loveday.ch. Five years ago I thought it was stupid, but now that I"m almost in my thirties and work is taking up all my time, dates are getting scarce. It"s sad, so enough about that.
In any case, just when I was asking myself this question, just when I"d been spending many nights a week online studying Julian a.s.sange"s character, just when allegations have been made against him by two young Swedish women, what do I read on Mashable.com? Julian a.s.sange is on OkCupid, an international dating site.
He"s all smiles on his profile. Apparently, it"s a real profile, too. He used famous science fiction author Harry Harrison as a nickname. It"s entirely probable, as everyone uses nicknames on these sites. [UPDATE: I saw that he quoted this nickname in examples of the Australian Labour Party in the WikiLeaks mailing list in 2006; correlation?] The founder of the site was questioned and the profile was apparently created in 2006, used for the last time in December 2006. Technically, it"s quite unlikely that it was created recently. Julian wasn"t well known in 2006, so it had to be him that signed up to this dating site. Let"s have a closer look.
His summary description and the type of woman he wants are interesting: "Want a regular, down to earth guy? Keep moving. I am not the droid you"re looking for. Save us both while you still can. Pa.s.sionate, and often pig-headed activist intellectual seeks siren for love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy. Such a woman should be spirited and playful, of high intelligence, though not necessarily formally educated, have s.p.u.n.k, cla.s.s & inner strength and be able to think strategically about the world and the people she cares about. I like women from countries that have sustained political turmoil. Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Although I am pretty intellectually and physically pugnacious, I am very protective of women and children. I am DANGER, ACHTUNG ??????????!"
But that"s me!!! Except for the country. In fact, what does he mean by that? He likes Asian women? Or girls from the former Eastern Bloc? As implied by a female dating expert (I had no idea that was a job!), they are sad and so they"re more docile. He consoles them, brings them comfort and voila, it"s in the bag. Creep!!!
He goes on to explain that he runs "a consuming, dangerous human rights project."
Finally, he has that savior soul for widows and orphans: save, defend and fight the internal establishment. You"re my hero, Julian, my Robin Hood.
Very smart. Adventurer seeks adventuress! It could work on this type of site.
On OkCupid he was seeking "A spirited, erotic, nonconformist. Non-conformity is not the adoption of some preexisting alternative subculture. I seek innate perceptiveness and s.p.u.n.k." And further: "Do not write to me if you are timid. I am too busy. Write to me if you are brave."
That"s pretty direct!! He doesn"t want a long-term relationship, apparently. It has to be quick. Not surprising when we know his life like we do today. In fact, when travelling he said he preferred to sleep over at sympathizers rather than in hotels. To do that, he would need a lot of connections around the world. Did this profile combine practical and fun considerations?
The expert, who a.n.a.lyzed the profile without knowing it was about Julian, described him as a hurt and arrogant man with an ego, while his profile dissuades "good quality" women. Every woman is the same to him. It"s someone who lives in his head. He wants a woman who will have an opinion that he"ll probably hate.
It seems to match the correspondence I found on Gawker, which seems to reflect his touchiness.
In April 2004, he insistently courted a nineteen-year-old girl in a bar. She accepted to answer the online media journalist"s questions on the condition of being called Elizabeth.
Back then, Julian and Elizabeth were both students at the University of Melbourne. Julian was thirty-three years old. The young girl spotted him because he looked different. He was too old for her, but his long white hair and confidence made him seem different from the other men she had met in university.
She started talking to him. He seemed kind of quiet and nerdy. She didn"t really think he was s.e.xy, just strange and intriguing. Julian flirted a moment with Elizabeth, showing off by explaining complex equations and joking about her mathematical ignorance. They talked until the bar closed. Julian walked her home where she lived with her parents. Before leaving Julian kissed her. She wasn"t really happy about it, but didn"t push him away either. He stayed calm and didn"t try anything weird. Before he left, they swapped e-mail addresses. Julian gave her his card with his details and the image of a lighthouse, possibly an early symbol of his quest for transparency. They parted company.
A few days later, Julian sent an e-mail to the young girl, inviting her on a date: Dear Miss Elizabeth, I found your company and kisses very appealing. I want to explore them further. Are you busy Monday night?
Julian.
Elizabeth didn"t remember how she answered him, but she had turned him down. They"d only exchanged e-mail addresses, and she didn"t think she"d hear from him again until Julian called her up the next day at her parents" place. Elizabeth was shocked and Julian didn"t answer her when she coldly asked how he got her number. The discussion went awry, but Julian wasn"t discouraged. He sent another e-mail pointing out her coldness and lack of courtesy on the phone: Dear Elizabeth, Your reaction to my phone call lacked dignity and has stung. You seemed above such trivialities. It saddens me to have misjudged you. I enjoyed our moonlit walk and the easy intimacy in our interaction. I had hoped that such an interaction would produce an interesting friendship if nothing more.
Please respond.
Julian.
This message put Elizabeth more at ease, which she replied nicely. The same day Julian sent her a message in his own unique style: Here, Julian expressed his view on life. He doesn"t partic.i.p.ate in someone else"s reality; he doesn"t want that. He would rather create his own world. He maintains a philosophical fervor in expressing his view of his own experience with this young girl.
A few days later, he tried calling Elizabeth again. She tried to pa.s.s herself off as somebody else, because she was scared of his persistence.
After a few other e-mails without any answer from Elizabeth, Julian decided to change his approach. Instead of calling Elizabeth, he tried to get her to call him. However, she thought he picked a really bad way to give her his phone number. He took the number of her car"s license plate and made it into a riddle, which once solved would reveal his phone number. He sent her an e-mail with the riddle. Elizabeth answered that she wouldn"t call him because his weird riddle didn"t give her his phone number.
One more time Julian decided to call her, and later that day he sent her a message asking what was the best time to call without bothering her parents. It was April 12 2004, about ten days after they first met at the bar.
Tired, Elizabeth said to stop calling her house. Julian, who was humiliated by this affair, sent her this sentence: "If you"re lucky you can also find me at ". He signed with a "J."
He eventually gave up, but before that, he sent one last nasty e-mail: His OkCupid profile reveals a Don Juan style with women and this situation with Elizabeth shows to what extent he didn"t appreciate being rejected. Elizabeth told Gawker that she never felt threatened by a.s.sange"s behavior, but thought he was socially awkward in his flirting: "I don"t think he"s a bad person," she said. "He"s just a funny b.u.g.g.e.r."
There"s a man who evokes some sort of mystery.
The way he looked at the start of WikiLeaks with platinum hair, made him look like something between a pop singer and a mad scientist. Today he has a new look, field reporter meets modern fighter with leather jacket (what a jacket!!), or politician with a suit like a television news anchor. I also saw him in a tailor-made Italian suit with sungla.s.ses like James Bond. He has many styles like a star in celebrity publications. In fact Rolling Stone Italy declared him Rock Star of the Year in 2010!
The man has different facets: sometimes simple and accessible, respectable like a good son-in-law, or a spy ready to score with women. Whether he smiles or not on pictures, he still has a frank and inquisitive look. I feel like he wants to understand, get to the bottom of issues and break open mysteries.
He"s a major figure in the history of journalism and information. What will people be saying about Julian in a few years? Julian a.s.sange, the man who redefined journalism in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Will he be quoted like Gutenberg and the invention of the printing press or Ed Bradley, the first black television correspondent to the White House, and his twenty-six years of reporting on CBS?
Julian a.s.sange may be a hero, but he" still a man with flaws, and a personality that is still kind of monomaniac and he only thinks of the secrets of authorities, an obsessive project on which he"s focused like a laser ready to pierce hidden information.
He can make girls fall for him like a rock star, so danger, achtung!, as he had put it. He"s always the charmer. An article in The First Post reported the following story: "A journalist met with Julian in a restaurant in Sweden. The journalist showed up with his girlfriend. After talking for a moment, the girlfriend and Julian went outside to smoke. A few minutes later, the journalist went outside to find out what they were up to. He was surprised to see a.s.sange whispering in his girlfriend"s ear. While the journalist got upset, Julian put up his dukes as if he were ready to fight. The young woman admitted that Julian asked her to spend the night with him. The journalist commented that Julian seemed to enjoy humiliating him."
He likes to play with fire anytime he can. He"s convinced of his superiority as well as of his intelligence, culture, charisma, and slickness. Women all say they don"t like that kind of man, but many women still fall for him.
As for me, I"m interested in his mysteriousness. The more I"m interested in him, the more I think he has a loveable side. Julian is like a gifted child bordering on autism. He sees the world the way he sees it and tries to make the people he wants enter into it. On his blog Iq.org, we see that he sometimes felt alone and misunderstood. He quotes this sentence by Aldous Huxley about Isaac Newton to which he seemed to identify: "Newton paid for his supreme intelligence [...] incapable of friendship, love, fatherhood, and many other desirable things. As a man he was a failure; as a monster he was superb."
And in another posting in June 2006, he wrote: "I have a special fondness for women caught in thunderstorms," again showing his protective side. He has the ability to go very far for a woman. In the same posting he explains that he was going out with a girl who was a coffee addict and who drank tons of coffee. He would watch her drink coffee with such envy that he wanted to be in the cup. He went as far as making a watery paste of finely ground coffee to seduce her.
Julian is pathetic and poetic at the same time. Underneath his Don Juan exterior he"ll talk to anything in a mini-skirt. I figure this guy needs a "quality woman"!
I"m going to sign up to OkCupid!!
FIRST ORDEAL.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.