Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Julian Assange on The New York Times

A fascinating segment from an interview with Julian Assange.

In part eight of the interview, Assange talks about how the New York Times and the Guardian sought clearance from the U.S. State Department and National Security Council to publish select Cablegate content.

NYTX Editor Chris Spannos interviewed Julian Assange on September 26, 2011. Interview segments have been released through the months of October, November, and December.

Within the entirety of the  interview Assange talks about partnering with the Times to release the Afghan and Iraq War Logs, the Times treatment of Cablegate, Bradley Manning, the Pentagon Papers, WikiLeaks, and much more. The complete interview ran approximately 90 minutes.

See part one of the interview here:


  1. And what the hell is wrong with seeking clearance from your own government when it comes to anything that could be potentially damaging to the national interests? I'd call that responsible and patriotic, and, btw, I have a feeling that Ron Paul fans, including you Mr Wenzel are getting more Chomskian every day, so you shouldn't be surprised that most Republican voters are not going to support Mr Paul, even if they are sympathetic to some of his economic ideas. I may not approve of everything that the US government has done, but siding with people like Mr Assange or this kind of anti-American, paranoid drivel will get you nowhere, or, rather, into oblivion where I more and more often think both you and Mr Paul belong... :))

  2. @speaker

    There are no genuine "national" interests. The only interests are those of the patrons, cabals, and corporations who direct the government. All that national interest talk is to cover their ass.

  3. @Speaker,

    What the hell is un-patriotic and irresponsible about exposing facts that pass under the guise and rubric of "national interest" to show that they are, in fact, not in the "national interest" and that "national interest" is just a pretext for murder, stealing, lying, cheating and other immoral acts? I would argue the exact diametrical opposite. Any person who wishes to preserve any semblance of dignity, morality, goodness, wisdom, virtue and good, sound judgement to promote the well-being, prosperity and peacefulness of his fellow man, wherever they may be, is a patriot and acting well with his authority and exercising responsibility.

    As Steve has accurately and succinctly pointed out, there are no "national interests". Again, that is merely a ficticious construct to justify a (relatively) small, ever-rotating, power-mad group's smug sense of morality and downright evil actions. Literally. But, you may call it what you does not make it so. I may call an apple an orange, but if the apple does not possess the inherent qualities and characteristics of an orange, it is not, definitionally, an orange.

    As far as the reference to Chomsky goes, you commit the genetic fallacy and a non-sequitur and I believe "most Republicans" (and quite a few Dem's and Independents!) are going to surprise you, but we shall see.

    As far as your approval with the evil actions of the U.S. government go, where does your approval cease and your ideal of what it means to be a patriot, an American and responsible kick in? Must they inter you in the name of "national interest" befor you have this "Eureka" moment? Something else perhaps?

    Being intelligent, alert and cognizant does not equal "paranoia" either.

    On oblivion: I hate to break it to you, but there is something about human-being's and human-nature and their intrinsic, God-given (IMO) desire for freedom and liberty, so I don't believe the quest shall pass soon; You're stuck with it whether you like it or not.

    And lastly, and I do not mean this in a mean-spirited way, but if anyone in this conversation is "un-American", it is you.

    Ron Paul 2012!

  4. @Steve
    In that case, try living in Rwanda, and see how you like that: if it's just patrons, cabals and corporations, then it is those patrons, cabals and corporations that made you a citizen of the richest and most powerful nation in the world, with all the advantages and privileges that this status gives you, if you hate it so much, and you don't think that you are also a stakeholder in the national interest, why don't you renounce your US citizenship and go somewhere else? That would surely be the most consistent thing to do :))
    It surely makes my heart swell with pride to see that I managed to provoke such an inspired and long-winded tirade, :)) but your problem, apart from obviously being rather naive and extremely fanatical about a lost cause, :) is that you're confusing national interest with universal morality. If we leave aside the relative nature of morality, prone to fundamental changes based on the technological, economic and social factors (for instance, Aristotle, the father of ethics saw nothing wrong with slavery, and he was, of course, totally right in his time :)) ), it is a phenomenon applicable only to a specific individual and his or her private sphere and private choices. All attempts to broaden its scope to encompass more Darwinian areas of economy, national and international politics and military power of necessity end disastrously simply because they're totally unrealistic and fundamentally blind regarding the human nature and the real, i.e. non-utopian and non-idealistic view of the existing human societies.
    And you're right, I'm emminently un-American, since I was born in Europe and I've been living in one or another EU country most of my life, which is, of course, just one more reason to admire the US :)) The reason why I take an active interest in the US politics and economy is exactly what Paul's fans either ignore or loathe: the fact that the USA is the only global empire at the moment, so the US presidential elections are in fact the contest to determine who shall be the new global Caesar/August/Holy Roman Emperor and, since that affects my own life and well-being in numerous ways, I fell that, although I'm obviously not eligible to vote, I'm at least entitled to voice my opinion :)) And my opinion is, let me state it once again, in case you missed it, :)) that Ron Paul may be a nice guy personally and may even have some very sound economic ideas of the Austrian/Libertarian type, but he's also a fanatical and very stubborn moralist, who would jeopardize and potentially undo everything his predecessors and hundreds of millions of Americans have been striving to achieve for decades, so thanks god enough of those Americans see that to make him unelectable, which Iowa primaries clearly showed to all but his most avid and myopic supporters :)
    So, since Singularity is near, and the old boy seems to be in good health, perhaps, Ron Paul 20012! :)))))