In its 10th years of existence, WikiLeaks has been at the center of controversy. Ever since its global debut with the 2010 Apache helicopter gun-sight video depicting the killing of civilians in Baghdad, the whistleblowing site has consistently exposed the naked power of empire for the world to see. As a result, the organization has been subject to relentless retaliation. With banking blockades, a secret grand jury and constant character assassination of its founder Julian Assange, who remains arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, the U.S.
Wonderful article: required reading for anyone who thinks about the invisible " snout ring " placed strategically close to the human brain, by the world's powerful and rich butchers, so to speak. I'm all in for knowing more about what great writers used to call " film noir/p.i.potboilers ", derisively, of course. The movie, Chinatown, comes to mind here, immediately. " It's Chinatown Jake, forget about it ". We know The PTB, with an assist from LE and the MSM, is running a continuing shell game for their masters. How and why is the great gift Wikileaks and all who contribute and support its necessary work have given us. Again, good article.
Why didn't Wiki Leaks post the DNC's and Podesta's emails earlier, during the primary election, when they could have made difference?
As I understood Assange to comment, they were released when they were ready and had not been ready, not released when they were necessarily most damaging politically to the Clinton campaign. That would suggest that he would have released before the Democratic convention if he'd had the material there and ready at the time. I do not know whether that is true, but that's as good a source as I am apt to find, I suspect.
Wikileaks does not seem to be an objective source of news leaks. It is important to understand what the bias of Wikileaks is to to put what it releases in context. Since it will not say what the source of the Podesta emails and the DNC emails is there is growing suspicion that it is tied in with Russia. Wikileaks seems to be losing credibility as it remains silent about the source of its leaks while security experts have said they are are quite certain the source is Russia.
What an obtuse comment. What Journalist is going to tell you who his confidential source is? Clearly you don't get it. The "security experts" claim the Russians hacked the Hillary campaign, but the Hillary campaign hasn't said that the published emails are not real, nor have they refuted anything published by Wikileaks. What does it matter whether it was the Russians or some millennial living in his parents basement eating Cheetos?
Nothing is more objective than a data dump. For a democracy to function transparency is crucial, else how can the citizenry make decisions? You clearly want a nanny state where your betters make your choices
Obama has stated publicly that the era of free speech (and freedom of the press) are drawing to a close as national security is more important AND both cannot co-exist together. I was really stunned to read that speech and realize no one contradicted his police state mindset (MSM or otherwise). I was not shocked at what he said as he has made it very clear he possesses a Stasi police state mindset and so do his handlers. The silence is what is deafening.
As for Klein I disagree with her regarding Assange, Wikileaks release of the HRC Podesta documents. Debating what is journalism and what isn't is a waste. Real journalism has been gutted and compromised by the Establishment as one Constitutional right after another has been destroyed. Our politicians and corporate minders love secrets and outing them all just pisses them off for the corrupt liars they all are. They want a complacent citizenry. I can't get the knowledge out of my head that we commit at a minimum 3 felonies a day that carry with it very long prison sentences. How did we get to this?
We got here by people like HRC, Bush family, Cheney, Wall Street, Big Banking, Big Pharma, Monsanto, etc. Oh, and Obama. Without hackers getting the truth, we would not know the truth, the real truth about our elected officials, what our govt. is doing THAT has nothing to do with freedoms, democracy, or our welfare. That is what real journalism is all about. They seem to have no problems spying on others, Heads of State, sovereign govts., blackmail, bribes, invasions, occupation, regime changes, etc. They sure hate it when that skill is turned on them.
HRC was so smug when she fake smiled being asked about releasing her speeches to the moneyed with no intention of doing so until after being elected--maybe. That sent a flag up and if she were smarter, she would have realized her mistake (again) instead of waving a red flag in front of the bull (our hacker friends). Same for her deciding on her own to use a private server and failing to trust her posse with that knowledge. In effect throwing them all under the bus when it came to light. How else are we to get the truth? Not through MSM but through our independents--those pissed at the Establishment. Those who believe in real freedom, open govt., etc. That is what journalism is--good, bad, indifferent doesn't even enter the equation. The truth is still the truth and the lie will be discovered rather quickly.
Obama hates us. Hates this country. Most of our elected officials do or they wouldn't do what they do. They have perfected the private face versus the public face (ask HRC) and without this new form of journalism (risking prison and having to flee the country--very real considerations and consequences), we would be in the dark.
If this were the '60's or '70's we would not be having this conversation. It's also a given we would not have two of the sorriest candidates on the planet throwing sh** at each other on their race to the White House. Wow. How times have changed.
People seem to miss the point of the article, the right to privacy.
The fact is that the John Podesta, Colin Powell and DNC emails, etc. were STOLEN and then published.
Would people be so quick to claim that it's the public's right to know if the emails were their own? Are everyone's emails free game for public exposure? Would we feel the same for the old school communication, snail mail? Can someone steal your mail and print the entirety out? Of course not, it's theft.
As much as I have been interested in the "inside baseball" aspect of the Clinton campaign, I do understand that what is in them isn't actually total facts. When you have hundreds of emailers throwing in their "two cents worth of opinions" it doesn't mean Clinton believed exactly as every emailer.
I doubt if all the emails sent to Bernie Sanders' campaign chair Jeff Weaver would have been nice and polite either.
To me, there has been nothing of Earth shaking importance to the Podesta emails. We get a picture of a typical politician, the type that can be 'two-faced' as they try to have support from a wide range of people. Get a clue, this has been typical political dancing since democracy was invented.
The only thing in the emails that needed exposure is anything that shows illegal activity because then it rises to the level of the public right to know. BUT, we have a problem. If the email evidence is stolen (it was), is that evidence legal for prosecuting illegal activity?
If you have been found to be breaking the law through someone stealing your snail mail, is that fair evidence? Certainly not if it had been the government stealing it for instance (no warrant). We don't want the government snooping through our mail, email or otherwise, so do we accept anyone else doing the same?
What about your own email? Can we steal it too? Print it for the world to see? How about your family and friends, is their email open for the world? What about your snail mail, it's a free-for-all where anyone can steal it and show the world?
Is that journalism?
Wikileaks is not losing any credibility. But those who criticize Wikileaks for ridiculous reasons have no credibility at all.
By the way, the controversy over the DNC emails is not where they came from, but the fact that they prove there was collusion between Hillary, the DNC and the MSM to conduct a smear campaign against Bernie Sanders and other presidential candidates so Hillary could steal the election.
People seem to miss the point of the article, the right to privacy. The fact is that the John Podesta, Colin Powell and DNC emails, etc. were STOLEN and then published.
Our public servants DO NOT have a right to privacy, ever!
You're unaware of actual facts. John Podesta, and Colin Powell were not part of the government concerning those specific email hacks. They were not public servants so their personal emails should be absolutely protected just as yours should be.
It's journalism, but what's the point? I am not a public figure who can affect your life. That would belong on the front of People Magazine or The National Enquirer.