More Assange Hypocrisy: Blasted Guardian for Publishing Info He 'Owned'
For someone who deals in illicit information, Julian Assange sure gets touchy when people share information against his will.
Last month the Times of London revealed that the Wikileaks proprietor was furious at a reporter for the UK Guardian who had published details of a police report concerning sexual assault allegations against Assange. His objection: they were private communications and the reporter "selectively publish[ed]" them.
Now Assange is upset that the Guardian would publish some of the leaked cables without the permission of Wikileaks (ironically, the info had apparently beenleaked by a Wikileaker!). According to Vanity Fair, "he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released."
The Vanity Fair piece begins with this anecdote:
On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier. The encounter was one among many twists and turns in the collaboration between WikiLeaks—a four-year-old nonprofit that accepts anonymous submissions of previously secret material and publishes them on its Web site—and some of the world’s most respected newspapers. The collaboration was unprecedented, and brought global attention to a cache of confidential documents—embarrassing when not disturbing—about American military and diplomatic activity around the world. But the partnership was also troubled from the start.
In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.
In other words, Assange thinks it is wrong for a newspaper to publish sensitive information obtained through a potentially-illegal leak. Unless of course that information comes through him.
And this man apparently takes himself seriously.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
What goes around, comes around
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:07pm.
Fair is fair. Suck it up, Assange.
Wah Wah Wah
Submitted by sam12663 on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:07pm.
Someone should publish his banking information as well.
Whom the gods would destroy
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:50pm.
I admit, I love the sight of this guy getting a taste of his own.
.....ass.
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:37pm.
.....ass.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Wikileaks doesn't 'own' the
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:36pm.
Wikileaks doesn't 'own' the cables or their information (did Assange pay for it, if so that would be evidence of conspiracy to commit espionage). Even if he paid for it, it was the property of the US government and thus Assange would have no greater title than a thief who stole documents from a bookstore. This guy is one screwed up head case, and his lack of insight is so amazing he doesn't realize what a nut job he is.
I think it's time this enemy combatant fairy of a spy...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:02pm.
...was snatched out of bed in the middle of the night, drugged, blindfolded, and his next sight would be the inside of a cell at GITMO.
Truman would have ordered it done, and so would have Reagan.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
But Dave
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:09pm.
Remember, we are above torture!
Better that we rendition him to Egypt where they can gently coax any important information from him.
Cool,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:14pm.
...gently coax...
LOL - Yeah, I guess that's one way of putting it. :-^)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
If we could only get G. Gordon to quit hawking gold...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:10pm.
or failing that, contract it out to Mossad.
SoL,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:22pm.
I have been screaming for that for some time.
Those Mossad guys don't screw around.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Just waste him, make him take
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 3:48am.
Just waste him, make him take the big dirt nap.