Part One: Historical revisionism and WikiLeaks

The ‘double cross system’

On the 2nd of July, 2010 Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, signed a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks.

Dear Julian,

I hearby undertake that, in return for access to the material known as Package 3 [U.S. diplomatic cables], the Guardian will observe the following conditions:
1. The material is for review only, and is not to be published without the express consent of Julian Assange or his authorized representatives.
2. The material will be held in conditions of strict confidence within the Guardian and will not be shown to any third party.
3. The material will not be viewed at any time on any computer terminal which is open to the Internet.

Signed, Alan Rusbridger

The confidentiality agreement stemmed from the Guardian’s investigations editor, David Leigh, who had become concerned that if he didn’t physically possess the historic ‘scoops’ contained within “Package 3”, they might slip away: “What happens if you [Julian Assange] end up in an orange jumpsuit en route to Guantánamo before you can release the full files?” Nevertheless, Julian Assange would not release the cables to the Guardian until the agreement was signed. David Leigh received “Package 3” from WikiLeaks in October 2010. However, when he subsequently passed the Cablegate archive to Bill Keller, the editor of the New York Times, he broke this agreement. The reasons behind this betrayal are complex.

After reviewing numerous journalistic failures by the New York Times, such as downplaying the extrajudicial killings by Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) Task Force 373, and hit pieces aimed at Bradley ManningJulian Assange and WikiLeaks as an organization, WikiLeaks planned to drop the newspaper and instead partner with the Washington Post (a paper also not immune to the need to placate Washington) and the McClatchy Group for the diplomatic cables releases. The publication began on the 28th November 2010 with the release of 220 cables.  Julian Assange:

We saw the New York Times as influential within its market, but on the other hand so corrupting of the material that we were trying to get out, and so hostile to us as an organisation in order to save itself, in order to distance itself, that we were not only betraying the impact of the material, but we were shooting ourselves as an organisation every time we work with the New York Times because the way they try to save themselves from the lash-back by military apologists in the United States was by attacking us, and therefore increasing the perceived separation. So for self-preservation and to achieve greater impact we decided the New York Times would have to go.

According to WikiLeaks, in October 2010 the Guardian was specifically told not to share “Package 3” with the New York Times and that discussions were underway with two other American news organizations. WikiLeaks has also stated that one of the reasons for the betrayal was to “keep their business alliance with the New York Times strong”.

Throughout 2010 and 2011, both the Guardian Media Group (GMG) and the New York Times Company (NYT) were in financial peril. For the three years running up to June 2012, the GMG was losing £100,000 a day. Andrew Miller, the chief executive of GMG, announced a “digital-first” strategy in 2011. This “major transformation” is the last chance for GMG. If a revenue leap from £47 million (2011) to £91 million (2015/16) is not achieved, the group’s cash reserves of £197.5m – currently being drained at a rate of £38 million per year – will soon be exhausted. Facing a similar crisis, the NYT opted (in March 2011) for the pay wall solution. A Barclays Capital assessment has projected that the pay wall could generate around $70 million per year across the company. A series of assets sales has also been used to buttress the company’s cash reserves.

It is possible that the “links” between the two papers revolve around the Guardian’s attempts to recover from its failed U.S. edition (, which was wound down in 2009. The paper is currently investing hundreds of thousands of pounds in stateside advertising in an attempt to increase its U.S. readership (29.7 percent of the paper’s web traffic comes from U.S. readers) in hope of generating much needed U.S. business advertising dollars. The Guardian has also re-launched its U.S. front page with a new URL ( and there is talk of following the New York Times’ model of imposing subscription fees.

Another element mentioned by WikiLeaks is that the Guardian considered that if the New York Times published the diplomatic cables first, it might help deflect accusations of “espionage activity” through acquiring the protection of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment. Alan Rusbridger:

The lawyers were quite worried saying they could lock you up they could extradite you, you could be you know forbidden from ever going to America, they could do you under the espionage act, they could do this, this and this.

For these reasons, and to pursue U.S. advertising dollars, it could only be helpful to the newspaper to distance itself from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Contrary to this notion, and highlighting the duality of interests found within newspapers, WikiLeaks has reported that it took a practical view of the Guardian’s betrayal and that discussions took place with the Guardian (with the sole condition that David Leigh would not be involved) on a further partnership for a release of 15,000 Afghanistan War Logs that had been held back for a more detailed redaction review from WikiLeaks’ initial Afghan War Logs publication. However, several events occurred between WikiLeaks and the Guardian that turned the delicate process of ‘distancing’ and ‘conciliation’ into outright mutual hostility.

When Julian Assange learned of the Guardian / New York Times double-cross from a Der Spiegel journalist, he confronted Alan Rusbridger (who refused to confirm or deny the transfer of the cables to the NYT) and, although mutual interest might have compelled Assange and Rusbridger to at least consider working together again, other forces seem to have swamped this possibility.

Guard NYT Planned

Within weeks, the Guardian had begun its now infamous attack campaign upon both Julian Assange and WikiLeaks (this will be explored later). At this point, Alan Rusbridger and his brother-in-law David Leigh might have assumed that WikiLeaks was close to being obliterated, Julian Assange faced sex crime allegations in Sweden; WikiLeaks had suffered a failed internal coup attempt which had resulted in the sabotaging of its servers and submissions systems, and it seemed very likely that at any moment the United States would act decisively to silence the flow of leaks. Surely this was a prudent time to bury Julian Assange, write a book, make a fortune in movie deals and talk about what the next WikiLeaks would look like.

The attacks plastered onto the pages of the Guardian and David Leigh’s cash-in book (which will soon be plastered onto thousands of cinema screens in Hollywood’s fictional movie “The Fifth Estate”, based in part on Leigh’s book) were part of a crude public relations message that can be distilled into the following: Julian Assange is a mentally unstable, ideologically driven narcissist who cannot be trusted.

The mainstream media’s reasoning behind this distortion: When Julian Assange published the cables he went too far. WikiLeaks’ releases helped fuel the Tunisian uprising, which then inspired powerful revolutionary movements across the Middle East. It stands to reason that the next release might hurt us (the powers that control Western governments) further, perhaps even at home, perhaps deeply. If Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks cannot be persuaded to stay within the press’s regime of unspoken censorship, either one or both must go.

While describing Julian Assange as a “quite deranged” “Frankenstein monster” to his journalism students at City University, David Leigh also inadvertently explained why he opposed Julian Assange’s stewardship of WikiLeaks and why such ad hominem attacks were necessary: “[Julian Assange] doesn’t understand the parameters of conventional journalism. He and his circle have a profound contempt for what they call the mainstream media.” Here David Leigh is, in effect, stating that because most people have a “profound contempt” for “conventional journalism” he has decided it might be better not to argue in its defense but instead to use a ‘straw man‘ argument, framed in the distortions and lies that cause so many people to feel revulsion towards his profession. His argument for and against WikiLeaks is similar to the one expressed above: WikiLeaks is fine in theory, the problem is the person and the philosophy that guides it. (If it is to be of use to ‘us’, it must practice pragmatism and make concessions, while appearing revolutionary).

Obviously this is a nonsensical position – WikiLeaks is founded upon the principles and philosophy held by its creators; without these ideals, it is just another “mainstream media” outlet producing “conventional journalism”. The rationale behind mainstream media attacks is to create an opaque atmosphere where the public will witness – without seeing – the decoupling of WikiLeaks from its founding principles, in order to enfold it into the establishment press camp.

A straw man and Lukashenko

After the Cablegate betrayal and before the contents of David Leigh’s book were known came an event that sparked the Guardian’s assault upon WikiLeaks into life. Once again, the Guardian sought (using the contents of the yet to be published book) to disguise the reality of the conflict (redacting cables for political reasons) behind a straw man. In this case, the man was real and his name was Israel Shamir.

The Guardian, 31st January 2011: Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables. Extract from WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy discloses the antics of Israel Shamir, who pilloried the Swedish women who complained of rape. • Buy WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy by David Leigh, Luke Harding here

According to one insider, he also demanded copies of cables about “the Jews”. This WikiLeaks associate was better known as Israel Shamir. Subsequently, Shamir appeared in Moscow. According to a reporter on Russian paper Kommersant, he was offering to sell articles based on the cables for $10,000 (£6,300). He had already passed some to the state-backed publication Russian Reporter. He travelled on to Belarus, ruled by the Soviet-style dictator Alexander Lukashenko, where he met regime officials. The Russian Interfax News Agency reported that Shamir was WikiLeaks’ “Russian representative”, and had “confirmed the existence of the Belarus dossier”.

This was to be the beginning of what became an extensive, year-long smear meme focusing on Julian Assange’s supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘secret support for brutal dictators’. The meme quickly took hold and fanned out worldwide but it was actually driven by the Guardian and a small coterie of London-based liberal publications. It perhaps reached its apogee a year later with a much-criticised New Statesman article. While the Guardian depicts the events described in its report as fact, the New Statesman report makes it clear that they are allegations.

New Statesman, 1st March 2012: Julian Assange and Europe’s Last Dictator. The former WikiLeaks chief [Assange] will moderate a public discussion about Belarus, despite damaging the cau, by Kapil Komireddi

In December 2010, Israel Shamir, a WikiLeaks associate and an intimate friend of Julian Assange – so close, in fact, that he outed the Swedish women who claim to be victims of rape and sexual assault by Assange – allegedly travelled to Belarus with a cache of unredacted American diplomatic cables concerning the country. He reportedly met Lukashenko’s chief of staff, Vladimir Makei, handed over the documents to the government, and stayed in the country to “observe” the presidential elections.

Israel Shamir (an independent journalist who has worked with the BBC and Tel Aviv’s Haaretz newspaper) never had “a role” in WikiLeaks, any more than any of the other dozens of journalists who received a selection of the cables to work on. He had a total of one or two meetings with WikiLeaks, in the same way that other freelance journalists did. He was handed an additional batch of cables on “the Jews” by James Ball [“the Jews” is James Ball’s wording for the Minsk and Moscow cables]. James Ball is a former City University student of David Leigh’s, he then became a WikiLeaks intern for two months and, one month later, a full-time Guardian journalist. James Ball is very likely the “insider mentioned as the source for elements of David Leigh’s Israel Shamir story seen above. Israel Shamir has said that James Ball handed him the ‘Minsk / Lukashenko cables’ of his own volition, contradicting Ball’s much-delayed (May 2012) claim that he “was only following orders“.

James Ball1

What does Israel Shamir say about James Ball’s accusations that his views are “anti-Semitic” and the fate of the ‘Minsk / Lukashenko cables’?

“Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man living in the Jewish state and deeply intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. […] As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness […] However, I did and do criticize various aspects of Jewish [Zionism] like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state (against Palestinians) that originated in this worldview.

As for [the] “giving unredacted files” topic, this is a rather silly claim to be published in the Guardian, since this newspaper published the password to the whole lot. Moreover, their “redaction” of the cables distorted the meaning and safeguarded interests of British companies and American officials.”

James Ball described WikiLeaks’ response to the questions raised about Israel Shamir as “a mealy-mouthed statement“. However, the link he attaches to this phrase in his article goes to a Swiss WikiLeaks’ mirror site;, not to It does not look like an authentic WikiLeaks’ statement and it is also completely unrelated to the issues surrounding Israel Shamir. WikiLeaks’ actual statement about Israel Shamir is very easy to find:

Tuesday 1st March 2011, WikiLeaks statement that was given to, but not used by, the UK satirical current-affairs magazine, Private Eye:

Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an ‘agent’ of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual. However, he has worked for the BBC, Haaretz, and many other reputable organizations. It is false that Shamir is ‘an Assange intimate’. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Assange) twice. It is false that ‘he was trusted with selecting the 250,000 US State Department cables for the Russian media’ or that he has had access to such at any time. Shamir was able to search through a limited portion of the cables with a view to writing articles for a range of Russian media. The media that subsequently employed him did so of their own accord and with no intervention or instruction by WikiLeaks. We do not have editorial control over the hundreds of journalists and publications based on our materials and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. We do not approve or endorse the writings of the world’s media. We disagree with many of the approaches taken in analyzing our material. Index did contact WikiLeaks as have many people and organisations for a variety of reasons. The quote used here is not complete. WikiLeaks also asked Index for further information on this subject. Most of these rumours had not, and have not, been properly corroborated. WikiLeaks therefore asked Index to let us know if they had received any further information on the subject. This would have helped WikiLeaks conduct further inquiries. We did not at the time, and never have, received any response.

A detailed look at the genesis and back-story of the Guardian’s “Assange is anti-Semitic and has helped Lukashenko’s regime” smear reveals some surprising discoveries.

The exaggerated role of Israel Shamir in WikiLeaks is an invention of the Guardian, originally kicked off in an article by the Guardian’s Sweden-based religious affairs correspondent Andrew Brown at 4 pm on the 17th December 2010. This allegation / distortion originated in that article and was then placed on the Index on Censorship‘s website, in the New Statesman, and elsewhere. Later on the same day that Andrew Brown opened the Guardian’s attack on Israel Shamir at around 7 pm, the paper published six WikiLeaks cables stories on Belarus and Cuba. The Guardian then uploaded its redacted versions of the cables to a WikiLeaks website. This was the procedure agreed between WikiLeaks and its media partners across the whole Cablegate project: the partner newspaper writes a story it thinks its readers will be interested in, takes care of any necessary redactions, then immediately after the article is published in the newspaper they upload the redacted version of the cable to the WikiLeaks website for publication there (whether the newspaper chooses to publish the cable in full along with their article or not – many didn’t). One of the Guardian’s 17th December cable stories concerned Alexander Lukashenko and is based on three cables: MINSK 000311, TALLINN 000317 and MINSK 000641, the last of which had been so heavily redacted by the Guardian that it removed this list in its entirety: 3. (C) Belarus’ top 50 oligarchs are (Embassy comments on the individuals follow some names in brackets):

Within weeks Israel Shamir would become the first journalist to write about the Guardian’s cable cooking. When WLCentral explored the cable cooking issue, David Leigh responded with a tweet: “@wikileaks Another stupid lie from #Assange alleging ‘cable censorship’ by #Guardian, (stuck with UK libel laws as he knows). What a liar!” In the comments section at the bottom of the WLCentral article, Heather Marsh, David Leigh and Israel Shamir engaged in a discussion of libel, censorship and distorting source material. Heather Marsh: “Anyone reading your version of the cable is left with the absolute impression that this, in the eyes of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence gathering country, is the extent of Bulgarian organised crime. I would also really like to know why your lawyers felt that the Bulgarians were a libel risk but not the Russians? Your readers deserve to know, at the very least, what you have redacted [and] why you have redacted it. As to WikiLeaks being able to publish what it likes, so can the Guardian if they, like WikiLeaks, are willing to suffer the consequences. True journalism has never been for the faint of heart.”

The Moscow Times also behaved in a similar manner when writing their Cablegate stories, except rather than redact politically difficult cables, they simply chose not to publish them at all. One of several sources (inspirations) for Andrew Brown’s attack on Israel Shamir, but which doesn’t distort his role in WikiLeaks, comes from a Moscow Times article which sought to hide the content of the cables published in the Russian Reporter by focusing instead on Israel Shamir’s anti-Israeli government stance. When David Leigh and Luke Harding (the Guardian’s Russia correspondent 2007 – 2011) picked up the Israel Shamir story from Andrew Brown, they suffered a deliberate amnesia of Russia’s post-Soviet political and economic landscape in order to damage WikiLeaks’ reputation. Indeed, their article returned its readers to the days of Brezhnev and falsely described the small and fiercely independent magazine, Russian Reporter (a WikiLeaks partner who Israel Shamir had given cables to) as being “state-backed“. This was done to imply that Israel Shamir was in effect passing the U.S. cables directly to the Russian authorities. And yet it was the Russian Reporter that had dared to publish accurate WikiLeaks cable stories and Andrew Brown’s and David Leigh’s “corporate media” source, the Moscow Times (owned by Sanoma), that had sought to obscure the nature of the U.S. cables.

For context on Israel Shamir’s views about the Israeli State, it is worth noting that the former head of Shin Bet (the Israeli intelligence service akin to a combined CIA and FBI), Avraham Shalom, has compared his own government’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazis: “[We’ve become] a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II.” And every other living former head of Shin Bet has similar concerns.

A few hours after the six cable stories are published in the Guardian, Nick Davies publishes, at 9.30 pm, the notorious “10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange” Guardian hit piece based on a leaked copy of the Swedish police file. Bella Magnani of WLCentral: “Here’s the riddle, Nick: why an award-winning investigative journalist couldn’t see the many, many holes in the police investigation sitting on the desk in front of him. The personal and political association of the first investigative officer with one of the complainants; the disturbing news that she was allowed to sit in on the other woman’s interview; the tampering with statements on the police computer; the two women being allowed to produce revised statements on September 2 in the light of the so-far still secret SMS messages; the police asking a witness about a victim’s prior sex life (WTF?); the failure of police forensics to find DNA on the torn, supposedly used condom presented to police 12 days after the event. And that’s just the tip of a very big iceberg – there’s plenty more beneath the surface. So, Nick Davies, why did you choose to publish an article based on only one side of the story? In an alleged rape case? Would you consider that good journalistic practice? Or a disgrace to your profession?” Nick Davies’ article was the start of the character assassination of Julian Assange in the English-speaking media.

17th December 2010 is an interesting date for Nick Davies’ article (his reaction to criticism of the article is also interesting), it is the date when WikiLeaks discovered that the Guardian’s redactions went far beyond what was necessary. The redaction of the Alexander Lukashenko cable, MINSK 000641 – information that would have been picked up by many other media outlets, assisting the plight of the Lukashenko opposition by providing further external pressure upon the regime – days before the Belarus election, is highly damaging to the Guardian’s reputation.

Many media entities who did not have direct access to the raw cables re-published the Guardian’s redacted cables that had been uploaded to and re-posted by WikiLeaks, without being aware of the extent and validity of the Guardian’s redactions. Major media organizations and highly regarded journalists such as the Italian newspaper L’Espresso’s Stefania Maurizi were caught out by the cable deception in a series of important articles. Stefania Maurizi: “I’ve worked PERSONALLY on ALL @wikileaks cables releases for @espressonline NEVER EVER published cables cutting huge chunks” 9:50 AM – 27 Nov 12; “NOT EVEN @repubblicait censored it, as the cable was released in that HEAVILY redacted form by Guardian” 12:28 PM – 27 Nov 12; “@StjarnaFranfall in Dec2010 @repubblicait DIDN’t have access to database cables, so it couldn’t know what had been redacted” 6:18 AM – 28 Nov 12.

There is absolutely no evidence that Israel Shamir gave inappropriate cables to Lukashenko. David Leigh and Luke Harding’s ‘sources’ for their allegations, the Russian newspaper Kommersant (owned by the oligarch Vladimir Yakovlev) and the Interfax News Agency (created by officials from the Voice of Russia), might well have every reason to attack someone handing highly damaging cables to Minsk and Moscow’s mainstream and opposition media outlets, but why doesn’t the Guardian mention this?

There are two Interfax articles that act as the Guardian’s source material for these allegations, both dated 19th December 2010. The Interfax-West one does not mention Lukashenko, let alone the so-called “Belarus dossier” being handed over to “regime officials”. The other, Interfax-Russia, does:

Minsk. December 19. INTERFAX.RU – Head of Administration of the current president of Belarus Vladimir MacKay met with attorney website WikiLeaks founder Israel Shamir.

Photojournalist portal managed to photograph on the steps of the presidential administration, the only Russian-speaking accredited journalist at the site WikiLeaks Israel Shamir, who had come to Belarus to observe the presidential elections in the country on December 19. The presidential administration declined to comment on the substance of a conversation Mackey and attorney Assange. However, given that the Russian media has already started to spread information about the location on the website WikiLeaks data secret correspondence of the U.S. State Department regarding Alexander Lukashenko’s position on the war in Georgia and the gas pipeline “Nord Stream”, we can assume that the conversation was about WikiLeaks Belarusian dossier. In an interview to “Interfax-West” Shamir confirmed the existence of the “Belarus dossier”. According to him, the website WikiLeaks has several thousands of classified documents, which are to some extent related to Belarus. He added that “the Belarusian dossier is written by Americans. There may be some interesting things.”


While the INTERFAX.RU article hopefully makes more sense in Russian, what can be clearly understood, is that it is full of inaccuracies and littered with basic errors of fact. This photo is Interfax-Russia’s ‘evidence’. It shows Shamir on the steps of the Belarus Presidential Administation Building in Minsk (Israel Shamir’s family comes from Minsk, his mother, Minsker, lived there until 22nd June 1941 and then moved to Siberia). This is the totality of the evidence against Israel Shamir. Despite there being no evidence or sources of any kind contained within Interfax-Russia’s ‘exposé’, it is reported in the Guardian as fact. Perhaps the pro-Israeli blog by Adam Holland is Interfax-Russia’s and the Guardian’s actual source: ‘Meanwhile in Belarus..‘ 19th December 2010?

President Alexander Lukashenko’s controversial re-election also occurred on the 19th December 2010, making it an interesting date for these stories to emerge. What happened to Israel Shamir’s “Belarus dossier” which the Guardian says was given to Vladimir Makei, chief aide to Lukashenko, who they claim used it to arrest protesters in the aftermath of the 19th December? The cables had already been disseminated to numerous media outlets weeks before the election, so everybody had already seen the cables that WikiLeaks had authorized to be released; journalists, readers and therefore, obviously, also the security services. The whole “Belarus dossier” affair is nonsense. Charter 97, a Belarusian citizens’ human rights organization had been publishing the cables throughout this period. Indeed, they were publishing them while under attack from Lukashenko’s government, whose State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus raided their office on the 21st December.

What story was Charter 97 running on the same day as the Adam Holland blog article that we speculate might be the Guardian’s real ‘source’? ‘Makei afraid of Assange’s files‘. Other “Belarus dossier” cable stories published by Charter 97 were: ‘WikiLeaks describes Belarus as a virtual “mafia state”‘ (2nd December); ‘WikiLeaks: Lukashenko can’t be corrected‘ (18th December); ‘WikiLeaks: Lukashenko’s fortune estimated at 9 billion USD‘ (18th December). All of these articles came out before Israel Shamir travelled to Belarus.

Moscow Times journalist Vladimir Shpak has also confirmed that Israel Shamir was not Russian Reporter’s and other outlets’ only conduit to WikiLeaks cables. However, Shamir was the most visible and, with his often hyperbolic pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli rhetoric and controversial style, he made a compellingly easy target upon which to redirect the cables story. Both Minsk and Moscow (Putin Bristles Over Leaked U.S. Cables, 10th December 2010, The Moscow Times) would have been increasingly keen to counteract the flow of bad publicity stemming from the cables and in the Belarus post-election crackdown – destroying the reputation of the cables could prove critical to the regime’s aim to shatter hopes of reform.

It is informative that the sister of Andrei Sannikov’s (the opposition leader jailed by Lukashenko), Irina, who is also the main spokesperson of the Free Belarus campaign, invited Julian Assange to the screening and audience Q&A of the campaign’s film “Europe’s Last Dictator”. According to the director, Julian Assange helped facilitate the making of the film and has been helping the Belarusian dissidents behind the scenes for a number of years. All this is verifiable but you won’t find anything about it in the Guardian, the New Statesman or Index on Censorship.

The New Statesman, BBC’s Panorama, the Jerusalem Post, Boing Boing and a couple of other blogs all recited the same ‘Minsk / Lukashenko cables’ story but none of those articles pre-date the 31st January 2011 Guardian piece by David Leigh and Luke Harding.

The London left / liberal mainstream media is a clique. Smears are passed from media outlet to media outlet, “article hat-tip” style. By the 1st of March 2011, James Ball was already employed at the Guardian and fully capable of writing up Ian Hislop’s ‘A Curious Conversation With Mr Assange’ (which built upon Julian Assange’s exaggerated ‘close links’ to  Israel Shamir) in his own newspaper, but chose instead to slip the story to a widely read UK liberal blog:

Liberal Conspiracy, 1st March 2011: Assange goes off deep end – blaming Jews and the Guardian in Private Eye, by Sunny Hundal

This is published in the latest edition of Private Eye (buy a copy!). The article is titled ‘A Curious Conversation With Mr Assange’ and it is the phone version of a horrible car crash. (hat-tip James Ball @jamesrbuk)

Unabashed by this error [Assange] went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom “are Jewish”. I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was “sort of Jewish” because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law).

The links between Private Eye and the Guardian are close. Ian Hislop is a good friend of David Leigh’s (as is John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship) and the Guardian and Private Eye share an annual awards ceremony, set up in memory of journalist Paul Foot. The Liberal Conspiracy article went viral on the Internet and received hundreds of follow-up articles. This is a favorite method of the Guardian: they drop a story they wish to push but don’t want to be the first to print (because their agenda would then be too obvious) into other friendly media – the New Statesman, Liberal Conspiracy, etc – and then use the resulting articles and spin-offs in those outlets as ‘sources’ for follow-up articles in the Guardian on the same subject.

Regarding Ian Hislop’s Private Eye / Liberal Conspiracy / Guardian smear, Julian Assange responds: “Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is completely false, in spirit and in word. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction.”

While the liberal “conventional” media employed the overused but ever useful ‘anti-Jewish smear’ to attack Julian Assange, they openly displayed a pro-Israeli bias in their reporting of the plight of Palestinians. A perfect example of this bias occurred on the 15th August 2012, when the Guardian announced the hiring of Joshua Treviño as a correspondent with the paper’s U.S. politics team, an individual who likes to tweet “Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.” And, “Not morally different from a Nazi convoy, is it? RT @KurtSchlichter: Sink the #flotilla. Enough screwing around with these psychos.” And so on, – ad infinitum. When questioned about this matter, the Guardian put out a statement: “We look forward to the open and robust debate that we are sure will follow between Josh and Guardian readers.”

David Leigh’s ‘encryption key fiasco’

For a period of seven months, despite the New York Times double-cross, the ‘cooked’ cables and the publishing of a book composed of a litany of distortions and outright lies, outwardly the feud between WikiLeaks and its ex-media partner the Guardian seemed to have reached an equilibrium. The Guardian attacked and WikiLeaks tried to ignore them. Behind the scenes, however, a crisis was unfolding.

During the Iraq War Logs release (beginning 22nd October 2010) the WikiLeaks web server came under an unprecedented level of denial-of-service attacks (DDoS attacks), which shut down the organization’s main page. Around the same time, the then ostracized, now sacked, WikiLeaks spokesman for Germany, Daniel Domscheit-Berg removed a section of WikiLeaks’ compressed data-set from its server. According to Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s wife, Anke, he only took the “most recent, unchecked submissions”. Looking at the files Domscheit-Berg has admitted taking (and also later claimed to have deleted), it is apparent that he took almost everything submitted by whistleblowers that had not yet been published. While the files taken did not include the encrypted U.S. diplomatic cables file (cables.csv), Domscheit-Berg’s actions had an almost immediate effect upon those files. WikiLeaks supporters moved quickly to protect them; first of all they set up dozens of mirror WikiLeaks sites, all of them housing copies of WikiLeaks now reduced data-set, including the diplomatic cables. Secondly, at some point soon after the mirrors were in place, a compressed file of the data-set was quietly placed onto the Internet via the filesharing protocol BitTorrent.

The cables were loose, but their position and the encryption key (also known as a passphrase) were hidden. The first of these elements to fall was the location.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg had a book to sell (Inside WikiLeaks: my time with Julian Assange at the world’s most dangerous website), but to ensure that his improbable claims appeared credible, and not solely stemming from a baseless personal animosity towards Julian Assange, he had to prove that Julian Assange could not be trusted. It is alleged that Domscheit-Berg elicited the URL to an unlisted root directory hidden within an obscure Croatian server (probably a host for a WikiLeaks mirror site), which contained the diplomatic cables file from one of his former WikiLeaks colleagues. Domscheit-Berg decided to tell anyone that would listen, that there was an issue with WikiLeaks’ security. Literally, anyone. In interview after interview, mainstream media outlets that felt commercially and conceptually threatened by the new media model inherent in the WikiLeaks project, gave Domscheit-Berg a platform to make vague criticisms of Julian Assange and the security of WikiLeaks.

Before long, Daniel Domscheit-Berg was also informed (by Herbert Snorrason, a one-time WikiLeaks volunteer) that, in their book ‘WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s war on secrecy‘, David Leigh and Luke Harding had inexplicably published the passphrase for a file containing the cables. Was this passphrase authentic and did it fit the Cablegate file placed online? It is likely that Domscheit-Berg used either the URL to the server’s hidden /wiki/ directory, or a torrent file (that could be used to download the Cablegate files – see below) to check the passphrase’s legitimacy.

Ever since the book’s publication on 1st February 2011, WikiLeaks had been silent about the passphrase that David Leigh had foolishly chosen to use as a subheading to Chapter 11. They dared not even point it out to the Guardian in case the security breach leaked. Due to the impenetrable properties of the encryption used to secure the Cablegate files, without the passphrase the contents were safe. However, when the passphrase was published in an electronic pdf format through the e-book version of David Leigh’s book, it was searchable by those seeking to unlock copies of the Cablegate file downloaded via BitTorrent. An inevitability was forming. The WikiLeaks data-set was ‘out there’ and the keys to one file, the cables.csv file, were sitting on Amazon. The unredacted cables could potentially cause real damage to activists fighting for justice across the globe. The only thing to play for was time. WikiLeaks held its breath. 

The story of David Leigh’s breach didn’t break around the BitTorrent, as one might have expected, it broke on the Croatian URL. Again, enter Daniel Domscheit-Berg. After he learned of the existence of the passphrase and likely confirmed that it unlocked the Cablegate files, he decided to give the German press enough details to ensure the whole affair unraveled.  Eager for a scoop, the relatively small German newspaper Der Freitag was the first to publicize Domscheit-Berg’s revelation. Despite WikiLeaks’ frantic requests for the press to be careful about how much they revealed,  Der Freitag,  TechCrunch and Der Spiegel all published stories based on Domscheit-Berg’s information about the cables and the passphrase.

Within days, the location was found, and every file within every directory of the data-set was checked against David Leigh’s published passphrase. The first to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together was Nigel Parry:

In the directory, date-stamped 9 June 2010, were 4 files, all encoded with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encoding, the files names with *.gpg suffixes. I started at the bottom of the list, putting in the David Leigh password. It unzipped z.gpg into a file called z.7z. Opening that file and extracting it using the Ez7z compression / decompression program, the file spat out a file called cables.csv, dated with a creation date of April 12, 2010 at 9:22PM. It was a 1.61GB file but it had been reported in the German press to be 1.73GB.

Many of the world’s more sophisticated security agencies would have had access to the unredacted cables due to the lax security of the media organizations that worked on them. Now, anyone could access all of them. WikiLeaks published the entire data-set itself on the 1st September 2011. As former U.S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said: “Any autocratic security service worth its salt” that had not already accessed the data “will have it in short order.” WikiLeaks had notified the U.S. government of the impending publication of Cablegate so that protective measures could be taken by them. And WikiLeaks had also asked for “any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed” without receiving a useful reply. The ‘architect’ of the WikiLeaks’ leak, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, had said that “[He would] only return the [stolen whistleblowers’ submissions] to Julian [Assange] if and when he can prove that he can store the material securely and handle it carefully and responsibly.” However, after Domscheit-Berg had caused the Cablegate files to be disseminated, he then revealed his understanding of treating whistleblowers’ submissions, “carefully and responsibly”. First, under the guise of “ensuring that sources are not compromised“, he deleted their submissions, apparently heedless of the risks taken by the whistleblowers in obtaining their information and despite the fact that he knew that WikiLeaks’ submission process does not record or collect any source-identifying information. Domscheit-Berg’s next illustration of “carefully and responsibly” handling whistleblowers’ submissions involved informing Der Freitag of his acquisition of the Cablegate file location and his discovery of David Leigh’s passphrase blunder. The strange truth is that Daniel Domscheit-Berg was correct all along, WikiLeaks did have a security problem, and that problem was Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Before Der Freitag published Domscheit-Berg’s information, Julian Assange again acted to protect individuals named in the cables. Julian Assange:

We found out that Freitag is going to publish this information and we implore upon them to not publish it, because once this combination is revealed then [that all] reveals and all our redaction work is in vain, not our publishing work but all our redaction work is in vain. We also asked the State Department how their warning program has been going along and could they speed that up, they started in November and December last year. It took us 36 hours to get a proper interaction with the State Department, the State Department having a policy of refusing to communicate with us, so we had to reach a high enough level for that to be undone.

I spoke to Crowley and a number of others and their top lawyer. They were of the view “well, we can’t do anything more than we’ve already done back then, we’ve informed all these people”. Then our lawyers instructed this Domscheit-Berg character to stop telling people, this was a dangerous activity and to stop doing it. Freitag then prepared another article, much more explicit, and we asked them that they do not publish that, but they did. And then Spiegel published more information, and that was then enough for anyone interested in the subject to go and find it and decrypt it, and that is what happened, and it started spreading via Twitter, and eventually started appearing on websites.

Despite these efforts to balance the public interest with the safety of individuals, Daniel Domscheit-Berg and the Guardian had forced events. Later that day (1st September 2011), the Guardian decided the most effective method of defense against the damage their reputation would receive over David Leigh’s gross negligence would be to blame WikiLeaks for his actions:

The Guardian, 1st September 2011: Unredacted U.S. Embassy cables available online after WikiLeaks breach, by James Ball

A security breach has led to the WikiLeaks archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables being made available online, without redaction to protect sources. WikiLeaks has been releasing the cables over nine months by partnering with mainstream media organisations. Selected cables have been published without sensitive information that could lead to the identification of informants or other at-risk individuals. The US government warned last year that such a release could lead to US informants, human rights activists and others being placed at risk of harm or detention.

A statement from the Guardian said: “It’s nonsense to suggest the Guardian’s WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way. “Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours. It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database. No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn’t do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian’s book.”

This Guardian statement posing as an article is deliberate nonsense. The Guardian could have checked whether the ‘passphrase’ was expired on their own Cablegate files. They could have simply asked WikiLeaks whether it was safe to publish it. They could even have checked the facts printed in their own newspaper. In an article entitled ‘Julian Assange answers your questions’ published in the Guardian on the 3rd December 2010, Julian Assange responded to one reader’s question: “The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the U.S. and other countries, to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically.” So much for David Leigh’s claim that the Guardian wasn’t to know the ‘files’ were still online when he published his book. Perhaps he should have checked his own newspaper first? Further, as James Ball knows, once a file has been ‘released’ as a torrent, it cannot be ‘recovered’. The file can be spread and hosted anywhere and its torrent file used to locate and disseminate it. That James Ball would suggest otherwise is astonishingly dishonest and presupposes that his readers have an extremely limited knowledge of file sharing technology, to say the least.

p135 WikiLeaks2, 31st August 2011: Guardian Investigative Editor David Leigh publishes top secret Cablegate password revealing names of U.S. collaborators and informants.. in his book, by Nigel Parry

On a basic security level, revealing any information about how Julian Assange formulates his passwords could have implications in any of the other myriad of sensitive areas WikiLeaks deals with. Any files encrypted by Assange at the same time – or before – the cables, and in the possession of any entity hostile to WikiLeaks, are now more vulnerable since Leigh’s book gave up its clue about how Assange formulates passwords. And anyone who has access to the original file David Leigh was given, could now decrypt it. Unless the original file was carefully protected throughout its entire life, decrypted and unzipped, then destroyed after the data was released, that password will work on copies of it for ever. So regardless of how David Leigh & Co. imagine computer security works – and right now they are desperately trying increasingly ridiculous arguments to blame WikiLeaks for Leigh’s actions – there’s no reason to publish any password this sensitive – ever.

A 10th September 2011 Economist article states “Mr Assange’s file management looks sloppy, but Mr Leigh’s blunder seems bigger: since digital data is easily copied, safeguarding passwords is more important than secreting files.” In the comments section David Leigh finally admits that the ‘passphrase fiasco’ was his fault after all, while still blaming Julian Assange:

“Yes, I understand the archive with z.gpg somewhere in it was posted by Assange or his friends in an obscure location around 7 December 2010, the day Assange was arrested for alleged sex offences. No-one told us this had been done [Julian Assange had told Leigh’s newspaper and its readers precisely that information 4 days previously]. Assange apparently re-used the password he gave me earlier (although the file title – z.gpg – was different.) Obviously, I wish now I hadn’t published the full password in the book. It would have been easy to alter, and that would have avoided all these false allegations. But I was too trusting of what Assange told me.”

In the months that followed, the Guardian continued its endless attack on WikiLeaks. It has now become the greatest assault upon a person and an organization in the history of the UK press. Members of the public writing in support of WikiLeaks in the Guardian comment section found their posts ‘disappeared’ and accounts deleted.

A pattern of reporting

The two examples above (the manufactured Israel Shamir smear and David Leigh’s ‘passphrase fiasco’) are typical of the lack of journalistic integrity generally found when the Guardian reports on either WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. Of course there are exceptions – both John Pilger, who contributes occasional articles to the Guardian, and Glenn Greenwald, who has his own column with full editorial control, support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, along with a few other Guardian writers. However, they do not let this support overwhelm their writing, and they do not invent or skew facts. They cover the subject and the issues it raises carefully and, objectively.

Below are four further examples of the Guardian’s reporting. These examples are important because they are all found in David Leigh’s and Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s books, both of which have been used as the primary source material for two Hollywood-funded films: Alex Gibney’s documentary ‘We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks’ (2013), and ‘The Fifth Estate’ (2013) directed by Bill Condon.

In the first example below, Guardian journalist Nick Cohen mentions “David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks”, but what kind of a history are they trying to project and why?

The Guardian, 18th September 2011: The treachery of Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder, far from being a champion of freedom, is an active danger to the real seekers of truth, by Nick Cohen (published in the Guardian’s sister paper the Observer and then re-published in the Guardian).

David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro, a classy Spanish restaurant in Central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put U.S. secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” A silence fell on the table as the reporters realized that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.

However, an independent witness – John Goetz, a journalist with Der Spiegel – states that the events related above are simply not true:

“I was at dinner at the Moro restaurant in London, along with Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, David Leigh and Declan Walsh of the Guardian, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Patrick Forbes asked me specifically if Julian Assange had made the remark “They’re informants, they deserve to die” at the dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner.”

When considering which of the two parties is telling the truth, perhaps the best indicator available is to look for a pattern of behavior, a pattern of systematic dishonesty. One aspect of the pattern is seen above. It is slanted journalism through the deliberate omission of opposing view points. John Goetz, a Der Spiegel journalist and witness to the alleged remarks, puts forward both the allegation and the rebuttal (which in this case is his own testimony). The Guardian only puts the allegation forward, which it frames as fact.

In the second example, the Guardian’s WikiLeaks reportage concerns the arrest of Bradley Manning, which was used by David Leigh and James Ball to attack WikiLeaks. Indeed, David Leigh and Luke Harding’s ‘WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy’ related as fact rather than allegation (1st February 2011) that Bradley Manning was WikiLeaks’ source – this while he was still being tortured at the Quantico Marine Corp Base, and before the U.S. government had even put him in front of a court for his first pre-trial hearing. Here is a tweet (30th January 2011) where David Leigh again names Bradley Manning as WikiLeaks’ source without modifying his assertion (that it is speculation and has not been proven) by adding the word alleged. David Leigh then blames Julian Assange for Bradley Manning’s arrest:

David Leigh6

David Leigh finally admitted (15th March 2011) that it was the actions of Adrian Lamo (an informant who at the time owed the U.S. federal government 60,000 dollars from a previous conviction) that caused Manning’s arrest, but he still tries to blame WikiLeaks somehow:

David Leigh11

Three months later David Leigh’s former student James Ball was still distorting the basic facts of Manning’s arrest:

The Guardian, 16 July 2011: All the encryption in the world wouldn’t have kept Bradley Manning safe. The story of Manning’s exposure shows how sources aren’t protected by the kind of security measures WikiLeaks takes, by James Ball

But perhaps the Lamo / Manning chatlogs offer WikiLeaks an opportunity to simplify their thinking. What matters is whether public interest whistleblowers are protected, and stay anonymous – not who reveals them. WikiLeaks’ greatest source is currently in prison. Instead of stressing no one has been caught through WikiLeaks actions, or boasting of security, WikiLeaks – and everyone else working in that world – should take a long look at what they can do better, and put the results into action. If not, Manning may not be the last whistleblower to face the consequences.

In contrast to the above, the Wired magazine’s  ‘unspun’ coverage makes it absolutely clear where responsibility lies for Manning’s fate: in his own brave decision to leak classified information he felt revealed crimes the public needed to know about, and with his ‘careless talk’:

WIRED magazine, 6th October 2010: ‘I Can’t Believe What I’m Confessing to You [Adrian Lamo]’: The WikiLeaks Chats, by Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter

On May 21, 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning initiated a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo after a story on Lamo was published at The chats continued over several days, during which Manning claimed that he was responsible for leaking classified material to the whistleblower site WikiLeaks. Lamo tipped off the FBI and the Army about Manning’s claims, and on May 26, Manning was seized by Army authorities and put into pre-trial detention in Kuwait. He remains in Kuwait while the Army Criminal Investigation Division and other agencies investigate whether he leaked classified information and determine if he should be charged with any crime.

Extract from the  Adrian Lamo / Bradley Manning chat log:

(1:52:54 PM) i’ve been considering helping wikileaks with opsec (security measures)

(1:53:13 PM) bradass87: they have decent opsec.. i’m obviously violating it

WikiLeaks guarantees that it will never reveal the identity of a source. Nothing can pressure WikiLeaks to reveal a source’s identity and it is pointless to infiltrate them to find out. This is because nobody within WikiLeaks knows or has the means to discover a source’s identity. Their system of submitting information has been designed to make that impossible. However, WikiLeaks clearly cannot guarantee anonymity if the source itself chooses to ignore security measures.

Another distortion pushed by the Guardian relates to the onward extradition of Julian Assange from Sweden to the United States:

The Guardian, 19th August 2012: Julian Assange: the balcony defence. Miss A and Miss W are at the heart of this story, however inconvenient it may be for the WikiLeaks founder’s supporters. Editorial

And ultimately there is the repeated suggestion from Mr Assange’s supporters that if he goes to Sweden he will face extradition to the US to be prosecuted for treason. Yet there is no serious evidence that Washington plans to start such proceedings; and if it ever did, the political and public opposition in Sweden as well as Britain and across the world would be massive.

The Guardian, 16th August 2012: Julian Assange case: stay patient and do the right thing. Refugee protection does not apply to the WikiLeaks founder and it is wrong of him to claim it. Editorial

Most of these were based on the claim that the United States wants to get its hands on Mr Assange because of WikiLeaks, that it may torture him, that his deportation to Sweden by the UK would bring this closer, and that Ecuador has a right to protect him.

No one should be naive about the US, but this is a fallacious chain of reasoning. The US has not said whether it wants to detain Mr Assange, though it has had plenty of time to do so. If it wanted his extradition, the US might logically be more likely to make use of Britain’s excessively generous extradition treaty with the US – which has not happened – rather than wait until he was in Sweden, when both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application.

The Guardian makes these claims despite credible evidence from a source with close connections to Washington’s national security powerbase – Fred Burton of Stratfor, who is ex-Deputy Chief of Counterterrorism of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service – that a sealed indictment for Julian Assange has been in place since January 2011, as was revealed when Stratfor’s emails were hacked and passed to WikiLeaks, who later published them as the GIFiles. The fact is that it is a criminal offense for any U.S. government official to reveal the existence of a sealed indictment before it is unsealed, which only happens once the indicted person is taken into custody. Furthermore, if Julian Assange is held incommunicado (except for limited communication with his defense lawyers) in a Swedish remand center and then a prison, his ability to exercise his legal right to seek asylum – a basic human right available to any person in fear of persecution – or to properly defend his case (doubly difficult when presented with hundreds of pages of evidence in an unfamiliar language with only two weeks until trial) or to rally support and fight a critical public relations campaign would be non-existent. Once held in prison, he can be held there throughout any onward extradition proceedings after either the Stockholm allegations proceedings or jail term ends.

Support for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the UK remains substantial and stubbornly resilient to the propaganda and distortions surrounding the ‘Stockholm affair’ (unlike the situation in Sweden). It is in London, where the world’s most formidable civil rights legal community resides, that resistance to an extradition to the U.S. would be greatest. An extradition attempt from London would be a seemingly unending public relations nightmare for the UK government, with political capital being expended day after day, into the teeth of an astute public who always favor an underdog. The argument of where it would be more viable to extradite legally is an obvious misdirection (Sweden is likely the easier option due to ‘temporary surrender’). The pertinent question is where it would be politically feasible. Statements that the U.S. doesn’t want Julian Assange to face ‘justice’ and that there is “no evidence” that they desire this, are absolute nonsense – the evidence is compelling and overwhelming.

The final example concerns a tactic which is to be found woven between the distorted facts of almost all of the Guardian’s coverage of Julian Assange. The ‘tactic’ is to attack the person rather than his argument. In an article about the mainstream press coverage of Noam Chomsky, Glen Greenwald writes:

One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, “style” and even mental health of those who challenge them […]  The New York Times [has] led the way in depicting both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange as mentally unstable outcasts with serious personality deficiencies. The lesson is clear: only someone plagued by mental afflictions would take such extreme steps to subvert the power of the US government.

What is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. The goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That’s accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It’s a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one.

In the article below, the ‘tactic’ or ‘canvas’ has become the main substance of the piece. Almost every topic raised is done so, solely to set up the next ad hominem attack, there is no attempt to debate the issues of Julian Assange’s predicament or his work:

The Guardian, 7th December 2012, Julian Assange: the fugitive, by Decca Aitkenhead

It all looks and feels like an ordinary interview. But when Assange appears, he seems more like an in-patient than an interviewee, his opening words slow and hesitant, the voice so cracked as to be barely audible. If you have ever visited someone convalescing after a breakdown, his demeanor would be instantly recognizable.

My point was that there is a theme of his relationships turning sour. “There is not!” he shouts. I don’t blame Assange for getting angry. As he sees it, he’s working tirelessly to expose state secrecy and save us all from tyranny. He has paid for it with his freedom, and fears for his life. Isn’t it obvious that shadowy security forces are trying to make him look either mad or bad, to discredit WikiLeaks? If that’s true, then his flaws are either fabricated, or neither here nor there. But the messianic grandiosity of his self-justification is a little disconcerting.

Decca Aitkenhead’s statements clearly do not stand up to the actuality, filmed 29th November 2012, nine days earlier:

Are the readers of the Guardian really supposed to be so helplessly uninformed as to be unaware of this ‘discrepancy’? Or is this an attempt to change the public’s perception of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks through saturation? This, in itself, is a propaganda technique and it is generally referred to as the ‘big lie‘. The idea was first expressed by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and 16 years later by Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.


In Part Two of this post we will explore how the Guardian’s attempt to rewrite history is fighting to embed itself deeper into the fabric of public perception through its adoption of the powerful medium of film. We will also explore the ‘WikiLeaks coup’ looking at how the Guardian was a critical factor in its genesis and how those on the losing side of the coup have also sought to influence history by projecting a wholly one-sided narrative, as an objective account of events.


Questions for Stefan Lindskog’s lecture: “The Assange case and Freedom of the Press”

Swedish Supreme court judge Stefan Lindskog, funded by the Swedish Embassy and speaking about the legal questions surrounding Julian Assange’s case at the University of Adelaide, should be asked some simple question:

In September 2012 Pentagon spokesman George Little confirmed the US government considers Wikileaks’ continuing possession of classified US “national defense” documents an “ongoing violation of the law”. Presumably this includes the Afghan War Diaries. In your opinion, is it feasible that Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) law could be used to extradite Julian Assange from Sweden to the United States? If not, can you explain why not?



New legislation is usually enacted in response to some crisis or event. What was the precipitating event behind Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence law, do you know? New laws are generally subject to intense parliamentary debate before they are agreed in their final form – was there much of this in Sweden prior to this new law?


In 2011 we learned from Wikileaks cables that US diplomats had dictated Sweden’s Ipred and data retention laws on copyright almost word-for-word. Do you think that in the next major leak of US government documents we might discover the same has been true about Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) law?



It’s been estimated that the Wikileaks Grand Jury empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia will finish sometime between July 2013 and January 2014. Given that Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) covers joint military operations in which Sweden participates, can you talk a little about the timing of the new legislation and how it treats the concept of dual criminality?



I understand Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) law requires amendment to Sweden’s Freedom of Press Act and to the Swedish Constitution. Why do you think there has been so little debate in Sweden’s media regarding a proposed change to the law which surely threatens their profession and press freedom generally in Sweden?


Cryptome and Gibney’s ‘We Steal Secrets – The Story of WikiLeaks’

Email correspondence between Cryptome and the film maker Alex Gibney regarding possibility of participating in ‘We Steal Secrets-The Story of WikiLeaks’. The emails were first published by Cryptome 21st January 2013.

Jigsaw Productions is first showing its documentary “We Steal Secrets-The Story of WikiLeaks” by Alex Gibney at Sundance today at 5:15PM (Utah time).

Cryptome provided emailed material to Jigsaw over several months beginning in May 2011 but declined to appear on camera, and after reading about Jigsaw’s biased treatment of targets in previous documentaries, broke off relations at a final meeting with producer Alexis Bloom at Zuccotti Park in September 2011 which was taped in part by the Jigsaw videographer.

In the five months before then we met once with Alexis Bloom and then had email exchanges primarily with her and a few with Alex Gibney, head of Jigsaw from May 19, 2011 to December 20, 2012:

June 24, 2011

Your telling about us would be most welcome, an important filter to avoid the snarling, obsessed demands for comments about WL and JA. Perhaps not totally avoidable but might be transformed into more informative accounts, as you aspire with your project.

Before the WL furor we were not so cranky about interviews. Indeed, considered them to be in accord with Cryptome’s public outreach.

Happy to participate and perform to music and song.


Deborah and John

August 4, 2011

Dear Alexis,

From the Jigsaw title the “Unnamed Wikileaks Project,” the project appears to have retreated into a narrow-focussed commercial theme, perhaps unavoidable in buzzy-headline Media World.

The Jigsaw project title is revolting trite-brand marketing.

What has come of our discussion about the many substantial contributors to breaking down of the information control hegemon obscured by the hyperbolic Wikileaks promotional frenzy?


John and Deborah

Subject: Re: August 23rd / Jigsaw
From: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:49:05 -0400
Cc: dn[at]
To: John Young <jya[at]>

John and Deborah,

The title “Unnamed WikiLeaks Project” is simply a placeholder. It’s like calling the project “Unnamed Computer Project” or “Information Project,” (which it’s also sometimes called in the office.) It’s a blank title. Basically, the film has no title yet, so it gets given a placeholder that means pretty much nothing at all — I presume you saw it on the website. (The Lance Armstrong film was called “Bike Film,” and every other documentary gets given a generic placeholder like that until somewhere near the end of the editing process, where the actual work of choosing a title begins.)

Our discussions remain the same, and we’re not retreating into a narrow focussed commercial theme. In fact, I’m going to DC on Thursday to interview Thomas Drake, who’s case is particularly interesting to us. His prosecution reveals government policy in a very unsettling way.

As I said to you, WL is indeed part of our film – there’s no point in saying we’re not going to discuss it. But we certainly do not intend to contribute to a hyperbolic WikiLeaks promotional frenzy – quite the opposite. I think we share similar views as far as all of that goes. There’s been a lot of incredibly bad (hyped, slathering, incorrect) reporting about WL. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing if we correct that. And once a more accurate story is told, we take it further to look at the big picture — secrecy, transparency, the battle over information, and civil rights in America today. Those are our big themes.

If you’d like to talk over the phone, I’d be happy to. But the title on the website is in lieu of putting “Blank Project Because We Haven’t Decided What to Call the Project Yet.”



Subject: Re: August 23rd / Jigsaw
From: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:24:31 -0400
Cc: dn[at]
To: John Young <jya[at]>

Did you get my last email? Hope so. Am happy to meet / talk again if you want to clarify that we haven’t totally lost our way…I don’t think we have!



From: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:10:16 -0400
Subject: Fwd: August 23rd / Jigsaw
To: jya[at], dn[at]

Dear John:

Please say it ain’t so.

I just returned from a vacation in Maine where I staged-managed my daughter’s wedding on an island without electricity.  Having been really off the grid, I didn’t catch up to this until now.

I don’t really know what to say.

I was so looking forward to doing the interview with you and Deborah and delighted to think about it in an unconventional way that you had suggested.

But I return to discover that you are “repulsed” by the title “Unnamed WikiLeaks Project.”  Really?

What does it matter?  It’s a temporary decal on a mailbox – with absolutely no meaning and absolutely relevance to the final film.  It’s a coat on a seat to be occupied at a later date.

So many people we have spoken to seem to expect me to know exactly what I want to say before I have said it. “What’s your angle?” everyone keeps asking.

The fact is: I’m just not that smart that I can imagine what I’m supposed to know before I know it.  Like Columbo, I just bumble forward until I find something interesting.

I can guarantee you that I’m not press agenting for anyone nor am I recyling some tired old line.  That isn’t what I do.  My past work is the only guarantee I can give about the future.  But I think the record is good.  Hope you do too.

Happy to meet to discuss further if you’re willing.  I’ve discovered interesting things.

And by the way, I am very interested in the information control hegemon.  Yes, I am.

All the best,


Begin forwarded message:From: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Date: August 23, 2011 4:18:07 PM EDT
To: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
Subject: Fwd: August 23rd / Jigsaw

Latest response by JY…

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Young <jya[at]>
Date: August 4, 2011 9:50:44 AM EDT
To: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Cc: dn[at]
Subject: Re: August 23rd / Jigsaw

Dear Alexis,

From the Jigsaw title the “Unnamed Wikileaks Project,” the project appears to have retreated into a narrow-focussed commercial theme, perhaps unavoidable in buzzy-headline Media World.

The Jigsaw project title is revolting trite-brand marketing.

What has come of our discussion about the many substantial contributors to breaking down of the information control hegemon obscured by the hyperbolic Wikileaks promotional frenzy?


John and Deborah


Hi Alexis,

Good to hear you are on the move. Since we last exchanged emails an interview of Deborah and John has been published, one of the few we have done jointly, and which turned out not too badly, we think. It may interest you:

That positive experience encourages us to imagine an interview with you would be most fruitful, even beautiful and stylish. Pencil us in for August.

Best regards,

Deborah and John

Alex Gibney
Jigsaw Productions
Suite 1762
601 West 26th Street
New York, NY 10001

August 24, 2011

Dear Alex [Gibney],

We’re averse to participating further in the Wikileaks exploit. Our suggestions and documents provided to Alexis were intended to provide more substantial sources long involved in disclosures to avoid the narrow focus which has evolved in milking the Wikileaks-centric story. We urge Wikileaks to be seen at best only as a starting point into a much broader investigation of why and how secrecy has corrupted democracy and open societies. WL cannot be the main focus or that will contribute to trivializing a much broader and long-lived effort of thousands of uncelebrated people exploited by a few notables working the disclosure territory — not least in public interest  documentaries over-dramatizing for appeal in the WL manner.

Exploitation of the Wikileaks brand on Jigsaw was unexpected trivialization. A sure sign of what you intend to do. And not what Alexis led us to foolishly believe was possible.


John and Deborah

August 25, 2011

Alex, Alexis,

For a scholarly assessment of the open source-secrecy conflict Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News comments on a new book:

“No More Secrets: Open Source Information and the Reshaping of U.S. Intelligence”

by Hamilton Bean

Bean sounds like an informative candidate for your research.



From: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Subject: No More Secrets / book
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:45:01 -0400
Cc: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
To: jya[at]

Dear John,

Thanks for this — and we’d noted the book. We’ve interviewed Steven Aftergood, remain in touch with him, and we’re on his mailing list. This looks like an interesting book, and we’re reaching out to Bean.

With best wishes,


August 26, 2011

Yes, indeed, I saw that wretched account, one among many.

I’m reviewing an even more disturbing new book, “Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State,” by Dana Priest and William Arkin, which is an expansion of their Washington Post series by the same name.

This by the far the most comprehensive look at what has happened to override democracy in the US since 9/11 through vast expansion of excessive classification of government operations and denial of public knowledge about it.

The Washington Post and the book’s publisher refused to publish much of what Priest and Arkin found but they provide ample evidence to uncover what would not be published.

Their series and now the book have not received the attention they deserve, not least because of the high-level opposition to their disclosures, including by the current administration which promised otherwise.

And timing, the Post series came out just when Wikileaks unleashed its most celebrated pr campaign. I have repeatedly pointed to the series as being far superior investigation and more deeply informative to what Wikileaks, ahem, leaked.

They describe what verges on being a putsch by the military-intelligence-industry complex exploiting the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt initiated by and now sustained by the 9/11 dramatization of terrorism.

There are a dozen or more books, films and documentaries coming out in connection with the 9/11 dramatization, with snarling among those who cannot believe they not only escaped accountability by starting two wars and continuing to rob the treasury but can also cash in on vainglorious misrepresentation.


Subject: Re: No More Secrets / book
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:43:47 -0400
Cc: jya[at], dn[at]
To: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>


I trust you saw the Times article about Ali Soufan’s book.  The CIA managed to classify public hearings before congress.  quite a trick.


On Aug 26, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Alexis Bloom wrote:Dear John,

Thanks for this — and we’d noted the book. We’ve interviewed Steven Aftergood, remain in touch with him, and we’re on his mailing list. This looks like an interesting book, and we’re reaching out to Bean.

With best wishes,


Alex, Alexis,For a scholarly assessment of the open source-secrecy conflict Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News comments on a new book:

“No More Secrets: Open Source Information and the Reshaping of U.S. Intelligence”

by Hamilton Bean

Bean sounds like an informative candidate for your research.



Alex Gibney
Jigsaw Productions
Suite 1762
601 West 26th Street
New York, NY 10001

Subject: Re: No More Secrets / book
From: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:01:39 -0400
To: John Young <jya[at]>

There’s a good film coming out in September 6, “Top Secret America,” on Frontline. Co-produced with Dana Priest. It’s a re-run from July 2010 show. So Frontline obviously thinks it was lost in the WL madness too — great that they’re re-running the show as their fall kick-off. (It’s a higher viewership slot.) I think this is going to gather momentum, and I agree, William and Dana did absolutely ground-breaking, amazing work. The photographs the WaPo took as part of the series are insane.


Subject: Re: No More Secrets / book
From: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:05:05 -0400
Cc: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>, dn[at]
To: John Young <jya[at]>

I’m really looking forward to reading Dana’s book.  (Though I’m sure it will infuriate me.) I’ve only met her once but she’s a pal of my friend Jane Mayer, who put us on to Thomas Drake and others.

I’m currently going through a FOIA process on an FBI/DOJ investigation (you can probably guess) and the redactions are astounding.  Unbelievable.

CREW is suing the DOJ on my behalf to get more documents on another corrupt act that directly hid malfeasance I discovered on my Abramoff film.

What did you think of Bamford’s last book?


Subject: Re: No More Secrets / book
From: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:58:46 -0400
Cc: Alexis Bloom <alexisbloom[at]>, dn[at]
To: John Young <jya[at]>

My friend, Lawrence Wright on the Ali Soufan scuffle with the CIA:

In response to phones message:

September 8, 2011


You and Jigsaw are in reconsideration.




A precipitating event is needed to avoid a banal staged interview. Something will turn up with live action potential — for participants behind and in front of the camera. No stunt acting and producing.


September 9, 2011


Missing from coverage of Cryptome is the crypt aspect, that is undercover, subterranean, hard to see, not easily available, no profile, back of background, ungrounded, black. This is the work of the architect side of the scholar-architect description of Cryptome which pays the bills.

A current architectural project is an example for reconsideration by JigSaw for a somewhat risky video shoot. This is work on a  crypt located in the sur-tony Lower East Side verily adjacent  to the superduper-slick, extremely above ground and flaunting it, The New Museum on Bowery. Bowery, which is under aggressive real estate-cum-art culture marketing as the “next High Line.”

Bowery which is under hyper aggressive study by the City of New York for “pedestrianization,” that is clean up the neighborhood of bums for crypto-yuppies wanting a bit of dirt but sanitized dirt, that is redacted of undesirables.

Our project is on behalf of those undersirables, to prevent their extreme redaction, erasure, instead to valorize them  as far more valuable than the best of the best art instituions.

Our client is the Bowery Mission, a century and a half servant of hungry undesirables. A Old Mission which has been rebuffed by its neighbor New Museum by offensively in chic architectural design and by refusing to exchange ideas of mutual support in fund-raising and serving ostensibly mutual clientele: hungry artists and their indistinguishable cohorts, the hungry unemployed. The New Museum has no use for either detritus while the Old Mission feeds them daily, along with thousands around the United States.

We think it might be a pretty good place to do a shoot of Cryptome in architectural crypt action, below the sidewalks of New York where there is a bit of excitement in the dilapidated condition of the Mission’s caverns, now propped from collapse by steel poles and prayers.

We think a bit of attention to the Mission being shit on by The New Museum would be a feather in Jigsaw’s cap. We will arrange entry for you as we assay and repair the Mission’s crypts beneath the noses of the assholes who adore high chic of High Line pretentiousness.

You risk rodent bite and gagging smells, maybe a tad of  crumbling stone, concrete, unmentionables and indescribables which constitute our architectural palette of cryptology no cryptographer would know what to do with except run for safety online.

Take a visit to Bowery Mission on your own, 227-229 Bowery, around lunch time, say hello to our publics, even grab a free lunch. Maybe saunter next door for museum-grade contempt and gaze upon the long list of donors right by the entrance. Some likely yours and Alex’s good buddies who could be persuaded to join the shoot if not contribute to the construction cost of the crypt repair for name recognition inscribed on a less dishonorable tablet.

Big donors could get a visit to the crypt project while it is still thrillingly and aesthetically hazardous original art, thus high risk, not yet tamed into cretinism like the High Line’s New High Line. This is not a dig at Wikileaks descent into puerility.

John and Deborah

[Alexis visited Bowery Mission and met with the staff.]


That’s Step 1 of the crypt-architecture of Cryptome.

Step 2.1 is to repeat with your team participating our confrontations at physical sites covered in Cryptome’s Eyeball Series, begun after 9/11 — three of which occurred in the DC area: The National Security Agency HQ, CIA HQ and a CIA-State Dept global communications site near Warrenton, VA.

In these instances we gawking citizens were held for background checks and personal data logging before release. In the last case our camera and video memory chips were confiscated with a promise to return them upon request to the CIA, a request to which there was no reponse.

Step 2.2 in NYC, to repeat with your team as participants photographing and video taping national security sensitive infrastructure which handles global and financial communications — and those linked by accusations of terrorism, central bank terrorism, governmental debt terrorism, police terrorism and juror terrorism. Easy to visit and see, within walking distance of the downtown Civic Center, aka The Ring of Steel.

Step 2.3, in NYC, ditto for the mass transit system upon which I worked as an architectural consultant recently and learned of its appalling insecurity — which has also been superficially reported, honest coverage denied for alleged security concerns, aka security by obscurity.

Step 3: Well, that will be provided to our patriotic email spies when we have established secure communications. Consider use of PGP as a baby step. Until we have reliable means our emails to you and Jigsaw should be seen as peurile bullshit lifted from the media as we understand yours and WL’s. Nothing wrong with that as Comedy Central fluff.

John and Deborah

September 16, 2011 [Occupy Wall Street coming tomorrow]


Well, congrats, and god be with and protect you.

We have not mentioned you to the Mission, but expect they are quite used to being solicited and likely welcome it in return for their own.

We had a meet with the Mission yesterday. Noticed a lot of celebrity photos on their conference room wall of humble Nobodies wearing red aprons pretending to be wait people — Couric, Diane Sawyer, Rudy Guiliani, movie stars, preening preachers, financial poobahs, even a US president, not recent: Taft.

Nobody photographed in the crypt — some of which was once used for cadaver processing for a coffin maker above, the inhabitant shortly before the Mission built its outpost to loft cadavers upward.

Haven’t met any disciples, but was thrilled at seeing those hanging on the wall.

We’re at a tight moment right now with the Mission, designing and developing cost figures due in a couple of weeks. Field meeting with cost estimators this coming Monday. No construction scheduled until next year unles a Sugar Booger is found, so if anything is arranged for you it will be to show existing conditions, which are more visually, rocky horrifying, than fixing things up, bleh.


John and Deborah

September 24, 2011


It is impressive that you have engaged top officials like Hayden and Leonard, ex-officials never really ex- due to lifetime secrecy vows, unbound after officeholding to doublespeak official shutmouth about spying on meddlers while mushrooming the vast secrets compendium.

Nobody who has had access to secrets can be expected to tell the truth about them, lying and dissimulation forever is a condition of access as well as for giving up access. Once in no way out. Thus required in all secrecy agreements.

We will never know what they know and they know that and are enslaved to obey the terms of privilege.

Is there a way to end this except having the secretkeepers and their irresistable liquor disappear? Likely not.

Dispensers of the secrecy liquor are manifold, not least by opportunistic opponents fond of the drink’s persuasive magic.

You should video Anthony Haden-Guest, a fellow ex-pat not at all ex-NYC bartender who masterpieces the art of loosening tongues with generous pours of flattery. Then double-crosses.

John and Deborah

September 30, 2012


Let’s do something at OccupyWallStreet. Cryptome has been covering it for two weeks with photos and video and tweets.

Over the 9/11 decade Deborah and I have done several graphic and eyeball pieces on Wall Street, WTC, Police Headquarters and its over-hyped “Ring of Steel,” the Federal Courts, Detention Centers, Public Monuments, the NY Federal Reserve Bank, Global Communications Hubs in the area, the whole cartel of gov-priv deals fostered by secrets, terror, finance, law enforcement, fearmongering, intimidation, titillation and bribery of the MSM and fringe media.

This is good precipitating event to highlight in situ the range of Cryptome’s interests and will help contextualize (spit) the more theatricalized WL showboating. In the open, no confidential deals and ear licks. Bring in bystanders, ruckus make. Be terrorists.

We will be there this afternoon for the march on Police HQ and whatever happily unfolds over the coming months. This could be a big booster to your launching platform

John and Deborah


On September 30, 2011, we met Alexis and a Jigsaw videographer (sorry, don’t remember his name) at Zuccotti Park, stated that we had read accounts in law suits about Gibney’s biased treatment of targets — flattering them to take part in interviews then betraying their trust with attacks of highly selective quotes and clips for maximum drama and entertainment. Based on that we said we wanted nothing more to do with Jigsaw, that Gibney was a double-crossing son of a bitch like most documentarians and journalists. We asked the videographer if he recorded that. He said yes. We went off to video OWS and they followed behind videoing our videoing.


Subject: Re: Review of We Steal Secrets
From: Alex Gibney <pag[at]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:19:24 -0500
To: John Young <jya[at]>

Not finished yet, despite the NYT preview. It will premiere at Sundance and debut thereafter. You will certainly have a chance to review.


On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:23 PM, John Young wrote:

> I would like to review the film when suitable.
> John
> —–
> Sounds from NYT like a most impressive work. When is it showing
> in NYC?
> Regards,
> John Young
> 212-873-8700

Alex Gibney
Jigsaw Productions
Suite 1762
601 West 26th Street
New York, NY 10001

Open letter to Wikileaks regarding Daniel Domscheit-Berg by Renata Avila

Dear friends and supporters of Wikileaks,

I am a human rights and information rights lawyer working in Central America. I met both Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Julian Assange during the summer of 2008 at the Global Voices conference in Budapest.

Since then Mr. Domscheit-Berg and I kept in touch via e-mail and instant messaging service. When I met them I was very interested and excited by Wikileaks’ potential, particularly for human rights practitioners in Latin America, where institutions are very weak and offer little protection to human rights defenders. In May 2009 I stayed at Mr. Domscheit-Berg’s home in Wiesbaden, Germany for a week while I was visiting a research center located a few hours from his home. On arriving at Mr. Domscheit-Berg’s home, Mr. Assange had just left. Mr. Domscheit-Berg explained to me that he had only asked Mr. Assange to leave because there was not enough space for all three of us to stay in his home. During my stay, he told me that he had had a great time with Mr. Assange. He even went so far as to say it was the best time of his life. It was clear to me that he had very much enjoyed Mr. Assange’s company. He was full of admiration for Mr. Assange, saying what a pleasure it was to talk to him and that he could listen him for hours. For example, he described the time they spent in Italy, at the journalism conference in Peruggia, giving interviews and spending time with Italian colleagues as “a wonderful time”.

Before leaving I gave WikiLeaks some documents detailing proof of torture and government abuse of a Latin America country. The documents were only in hard copy. I entrusted those valuable documents – the only copy available – to Wikileaks because of the expertise of the people running it, their procedures and the mechanisms they used to maximize impact when published. I did not intend to give such material to Mr. Domscheit-Berg personally, as was made clear to him by me at the time. My intention was to give it to the platform I trusted and contributed to; to WikiLeaks. The material has not been published and I am disturbed to read public statements by Mr. Domscheit-Berg in which he states that he has not returned such documents to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Domscheit-Berg and I stayed in touch, he invited me to his wedding in mid 2010 but I was unable to attend. After his wedding, I noticed that his enthusiasm, his interest and priorities regarding WikiLeaks changed significantly. His interest and dedication to WikiLeaks work had decreased. After the arrest of Bradley Manning became public, I asked Mr. Domschiet-Berg how I could help the young soldier, but he did not appear to be interested. He was on holiday. I sent him contact details of human rights workers I thought would be able to support Manning, which he said he forwarded on to someone else. He never followed it up. I was under the impression that he didn’t care or that someone else must have the situation well in hand. It was only after he was suspended from WikiLeaks that he became outspoken about Manning.

The last time I saw him was on 7 October 2010 in Berlin – less than a month after he had been suspended from WikiLeaks. This was during the time of WikiLeaks’ stand off with the Pentagon and the State Department. By that time his behavior had changed a lot and he was clearly very hostile towards Mr. Assange. He had changed in other ways too. In the past he was seldom in the limelight; suddenly he was surrounding himself with journalists, arranging meetings and giving disparaging interviews as “former spokesperson” and “second in command” of Wikileaks to both local and international media. He criticized Mr. Assange constantly. We arranged to meet at a landmark and then we walked to his home. It was not a private meeting; he was in the company of an American journalist Heather Brooke who said she was leaving for the US in a few days and a person who identified himself as researcher writing about “the internet”.

I found it quite odd that someone usually very careful with strangers was inviting such people to his home. Mr. Domscheit Berg, his wife and Heather Brooke were toasting with Champagne. All the people there were offered a glass but the reason for the toast was unclear and the conversation between them was cryptic. I left quietly. Heather Brooke subsequently published an article about her upcoming book in the UK tabloid, The Daily Mail (on August 7, 2011), entitled “The WikiFreak: In a new book one author reveals how she got to know Julian Assange and found him a predatory, narcissistic fantasist” in which she states “one of his disaffected colleagues gave me a full set of the US diplomatic cables that Assange was planning to use in his next publication.”

I was surprised and disappointed to read that Mr. Domschiet-Berg, both in his public interviews and in his paperback book (published in February 2011), makes a number of extraordinary statements about his work with WikiLeaks and about Mr. Assange.

I have been surprised by the number of statements he has made that I know from first hand experience to be false. One of the most extraordinary statements Mr. Domscheit-Berg has made is that Mr. Assange abused his cat (in Germany) so severely it was driven to psychosis. This is a serious allegation because animal cruelty is a crime in Germany and it is very damaging for someone to be presented as an animal abuser, especially when that is not the case.

The allegation was made by Mr. Domscheit-Berg in his book and subsequently reprinted by the New York Times and AFP newswire. I understand from press reporters that Mr. Domscheit-Berg has sold the book to Steven Spielberg’s Hollywood production house, DreamWorks.

I can confidently say that, while visiting Mr. Domscheit-Berg in Wiesbaden, I was able to meet and observe his cat. This was immediately after Mr. Assange had been staying with him. I myself have a cat and from my observations it was a perfectly normal and healthy cat that, like all cats, enjoyed attention. Mr. Domscheit-Berg was too busy to pay him much attention, as he was often on the telephone or on the computer, so I spent quite a bit of time playing with the cat. Mr. Domscheit-Berg watched and replied, laughing fondly, that the way I was playing with the cat was “exactly the same way” as Mr. Assange had played with the cat the week before. There was absolutely no mention from Mr. Domscheit-Berg that the cat had been abused or mistreated in any way by Mr. Assange. Therefore, it is very unlikely that a healthy animal, behaving normally and playing with strangers, had any disorder provoked by Mr. Assange’s behavior, as suggested by Mr. Domscheit-Berg.

I was alarmed by all the private details Domscheit-Berg was disclosing to journalists, irrelevant details that only yellow press or groups hostile to WikiLeaks or Mr. Assange would care about. Useful details for someone willing to divert the attentionfrom all the important information disclosed by WikiLeaks’ sources.

I am still surprised at the importance Domscheit-Berg gives to every tiny detail of Mr. Assange’s conduct while at the same time ignoring or choosing not to explore what WikiLeaks sources reveal. The revelation of torture in a country receiving international aid to equip their security forces, would seem to me be a better use of time, to those claiming to care about transparency, than the eating habits and clothing styles of an ordinary citizen leading a tiny NGO with a micro budget.

Now with the announcement of OpenLeaks two questions arise: the first will be if those behind the new platform have access to copies and they intend to publish documents people like me sent to WikiLeaks? If that is the case, such conduct would be wrong and largely disrespectful of the will of the sources – those who sent the documents wanted WikiLeaks to publish them. They did not intend for Mr. Domschiet-Berg to keep them for himself, for almost a year. The other is will Openleaks request their permission to publish it? And if so, how? Is it legitimate to free ride on the trust of people like me have in WikiLeaks?

These are valid questions, still waiting for a response. Journalists also owe a response to their public, waiting for relevant content to be published, like the largely ignored content of the prisoners in Guantanamo or the relevant facts unveiling abuse in Syria, the threats faced by union leaders in countries like mine, relevant facts that a platform like Wikileaks and the courage of sources made possible to surface.

The purpose of this letter goes beyond clarifying Mr. Assange’s behavior. It is a reflection and an invitation to move the conversation to what is relevant, what is urgent and how to behave accordingly.


Renata Avila

Guatemala City, August 15th. 2011

cc. Wikileaks, Chaos Computer Club Board

Comments on letter.

Bill Owen16 de agosto de 2011 22:04

Holger, this is what Domscheit-Berg actually said,

Julian was engaged in a constant battle for dominance — even with my cat, Mr Schmitt . . . Julian was always attacking the poor animal. He would spread his fingers into a fork shape and pounce on the cat’s neck. It was a game to see who was quicker. Either Julian would succeed in getting his fingers around the cat and pinning it to the floor, or the cat would drive Julian off with a swipe of its claws. It must have been a nightmare for the poor thing. No sooner would Mr Schmitt lie down to relax than the crazy Australian would be upon him. Julian preferred to attack at times when Mr Schmitt was tired. “It’s about training vigilance,” Julian explained. “A man must never forget he has to be the master of the situation.”

At the end of our interview, I couldn’t resist asking Domscheit-Berg if Mr Schmitt had now recovered from this treatment. He laughed, and said: “He is doing good. He is recovering from the trauma. He is now with my parents where he can go out and hunt for mice and birds and stuff. Sometimes he is still a bit weird . . . but doing well other than that.”

Bill Owen17 de agosto de 2011 10:20

Thank-you. Just trying to help, not promote any personal agenda around cat abuse. I will go on to say that accusing someone of animal abuse can be very effective, even more so than accusations of abusing humans.

That is why I found that particular accusation so odious and so in need of refutation.

Renata Avila17 de agosto de 2011 10:32

Totally agree on that, Bill. Thank you for pointing that out.

Christian19 de agosto de 2011 08:10

Thank you Renata for your work for human rights and for clearing up this OpenLeaks mess.

DDB seems to have a narcissitic personality (something bitter journalists frequently attribute to Julian, someone who’s had to sacrifice rather than benefit from his labor)… he is a big supporter of Reporters Without Borders, a group that severely criticized Wikileaks and has taken funding from CIA linked projects. (Not to say they’ve never done good things either, but they have a specific political agenda, especially against Latin governments they perceive as “left-wing” rather than US-backed dictatorships that harass journalists much more.)

I also find it strange (again not damning) that the wife of this self-proclaimed “hacker rebel” is (or at least was recently) the head of government relations for Microsoft Germany, a job which would seem almost certain to bring her into contact with state security services involved in internet security work.

I don’t want to drag you down to the level of petty gossip, but unlike the elementary school swipes at Julian (“one time I saw him skipping down the street!”) that regularly appear in mainstream media I actually think this gossip may provide some context.

lenasommer23 de agosto de 2011 10:20

Hola Renata!
I am from Germany and just randomly came here by a link someone posted on a German website. At the moment there’s again lots of discussion here about Daniel D.B. because he just got kicked out of the CCC and now he also allegedly destroyed the data / files he had taken with him when he left WL. (I don’t understand why he did that- I mean he had kept them for almost a year, it doesn’t make any sense to me.)

It is very sad to hear and a shame that he didn’t pass on your documents.

Among German WL “fans” (or maybe better supporters) there are many theories like that Daniel has been corrupted by some intelligence agency or so to destroy WL from the inside. I never believed this, he still seemed like a “nice” person to me. I always thought that there was only some personal issues between him and Julian that had escalated.. With his book he only “damaged” himself because many people said that’s on the level of a gossip magazine, and as you said it distracts from the important things. He should rather have written this in his private diary instead of publishing it. At least at some point he admitted that his intention was to make money with it (to finance his own website).

The cat story wasn’t such a big thing here in Germany, or that’s what my impression was. People read it, maybe laughed about it, and next day something else was more interesting. I have a cat too and I was pretty sure that Julian had just teased the cat in a playful way or so. (And that’s exactly what I read from your article.)

What I actually wanted to say is that I have become really disappointed by Daniel D.B. and his behaviour by now, and your letter has sadly confirmed my views.

Still thanks for sharing this.

Perspectives – Alex Gibney, Jemima Khan, David Allen Green and “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks”

Joseph P. Farrell (WikiLeaks staff member) email to Jemima Khan regarding her 6th February New Statesman article: ‘Jemima Khan on Julian Assange: how the Wikileaks founder alienated his allies’.
– Forwarded message –
Dear Jemima,
As you can imagine, when I read your article in the New Statesman I was very surprised. I was also shocked, but most of all, I was disappointed.
When you told me in September 2011 that Alex Gibney, who had been commissioned by Universal to do a WikiLeaks documentary, had approached you to offer you an Executive Producer position on his film I attempted to ask you subtly why you thought he was offering you the position. My exact words were: “Being called an Executive Producer on one of Alex Gibney’s films is full of kudos and will certainly be very helpful in any further documentary projects. I am an inherent cynic (likely augmented by this work) but, if he is not asking for any production money, then it is purely a matter of branding and using your name as an endorsement.” Before approaching you, Gibney had already been trying desperately to get an interview with Julian for more than half a year, since February 2011, and had thus far been unsuccessful. I feared he might have been using you, not because he valued your opinions on the film, or because he was likely to ever ask you to produce anything else with him in the future, but because he needed access to Julian. In fact, just two months before the film premiered at Sundance you said to me that you were “getting my agent to insist I see the finished Gibney doc”. That, in itself, struck me as an executive producer with very limited executive power.
Without access and without original interview footage, Gibney needed a tool to legitimise his film and add credibility to it. And, in the absence of the exclusive interview with Julian, what better way than to have the journalist celebrity who is publicly known to be a friend of Julian named in the credits? I am certain you were aware of that risk, because when you told me you were accepting the Executive Producer role you said: “I will still try to persuade Julian (via you) to cooperate (as I have done in the past) not because I’m now officially involved in the film – it’s not contingent upon any access to Julian – but because I genuinely think he needs friends not enemies now”.

From the moment Gibney approached us we did extensive research into him. We looked deep and took advice from people who knew him and some who had worked with him. Every colleague, ally, friend and even the documentarians we spoke to advised us against an interview with Gibney. Yet we were open to talks, we were ready for dialogue, and we engaged with him and with Alexis Bloom, his producer. None of our meetings allayed our fears that their piece was not going to be the true story. They did not appear genuine to us and they seemed to have many prejudices about Julian and the organisation. Their angle favoured sensationalism from the beginning, an angle I would have thought you would oppose had you had any influence on the picture.
Julian has had significant relationships with hundreds of people. Your list of so-called alienated and disaffected allies is not long: your article mentions nine people, one of whom Julian has never actually even met.
You list Mark Stephens, an internationally little-known media lawyer who had a contractual dispute with Julian and who charged Julian more than half a million pounds for a magistrate’s court case defence. Yet you overlook Gareth Peirce, “the doyenne of British defence lawyers”; Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and other lawyers at the CCR; Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge; Jennifer Robinson, who left Mark Stephens’ firm over the issue; Baroness Helena Kennedy QC; Geoffrey Robertson QC, the acclaimed human rights lawyer whose table you sit at regularly; John Jones; Julian Burnside SC and Julian’s other lawyers in Australia; his lawyers in Ecuador; the Icelandic lawyers; the Danish lawyers; the Washington lawyers; or any of the rest of an international team of dozens of lawyers who represent or advise Julian and WikiLeaks.
You list Jamie Byng, who published an unprepared, unapproved, unfinished manuscript that had not been fact-checked without Julian’s knowledge, but you do not mention Colin Robinson or John Oakes of OR Books, with whom Julian has published a successful and acclaimed book without any problems or disagreements. Neither do you mention the more than fifteen other publishers who are releasing his Cypherpunks book in various languages, or indeed the publishers of Underground with whom he has maintained a good relationship for more than fifteen years.
You list Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who sabotaged WikiLeaks’ anonymous online submission system, first stole and then deleted more than 3,000 submissions evidencing, inter alia, war crimes, corruption and bank fraud. He also started a rival organisation, OpenLeaks, a still-born branding exercise with zero publications. His entire livelihood is earned by constantly backstabbing the man who fired him.
You list a person, who you incorrectly describe as “the technical whizz behind much of the WikiLeaks platform”, who was in actual fact a technician contracted to upgrade our submission platform according to Julian’s architectural design specifications. He was first referred to in Domscheit-Berg’s book as “the architect”, a propaganda term invented by Domscheit-Berg for his book well after he was suspended from WikiLeaks. The term is clearly designed as an attempt to steal Julian’s creative authority. But you are correct that this is the way that he is portrayed in Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s book, which contains numerous falsehoods. I am, as I have always been, at your disposal to clarify those stories that are promoted in an attempt to harm WikiLeaks and Julian and to give you the true facts. Had I known you had an interest in the architectural make-up of the submissions platform and its coding genesis, I could have explained this to you further in person.

You list the Guardian and the New York Times, the two organisations who broke their agreements with us. One of the contractual clauses that the Guardian broke was to disclose a password that unlocked a list to all the diplomatic cables, which it published in its book in an act of gross negligence. Both the Guardian and the New York Times have written factually incorrect books about us to whitewash their deceitful actions, which they continue to profit from and promote. You don’t, however, mention the 110 media partners with whom we have ongoing working relationships, some of whom have also written books about WikiLeaks but who donate all the profits to us, as a gesture and in solidarity to help us circumvent a banking blockade that has eroded the majority of our resources.
Why don’t you list the hundreds of activists, researchers and publishers who play a day-to-day role in WikiLeaks’ operations – the technicians who maintain servers; the developers, mathematicians and cryptographers who build new search interfaces and oversee the internal security protocol; those who curate data for us; the investigators who corroborate submitted material; or the managers and administrators who plan and bring projects to fruition?
Why don’t you list the allies and friends across the world who enjoy a close personal relationship with Julian and who are part of the same support community that you once were – the more than 150 people you spent time with at Julian’s private 40th birthday party, to which Julian was generous enough to invite even Alex Gibney?
Is it because they do not seek acclaim in the press and because they do not say negative things about Julian, and hence have zero currency in the news?
As to falling out with Alex Gibney, Julian never fell out with him – Gibney was never a friend in the first place so there was never any relationship to fall apart. Alex Gibney was just another one in a long list of people trying to cash in on Julian and WikiLeaks. You may remember me saying how utterly offensive I find it that there are all these people out there who are benefiting financially from Julian, while the organisation suffers a banking blockade and lawyers have eaten away all of his personal funds.
You asked me for a response to David Allen Green’s article on 20th August 2012 and I told you that it was being produced. I told you that your request for this response did not go directly to Julian as you thought it had, but instead that it came to me. My email to you after we met said: “I will get you a response to the DAG article and, as I said, blame me, not him, for the lack of response.” What you asked for was not as simple as you thought, which was that Julian could probably rattle off the legal sections and sub-sections by heart – the response was far more complicated than that.
I have attached it. It is 55,972 words long, which is roughly 70 per cent of the length of a doctoral thesis. Julian’s legal defence committee prioritised this and asked a person to look into the arguments in depth, in order to produce a compelling response due to the harm caused by David Allen Green’s misinformation. It was peer-reviewed and revised and took six months to produce for you – a time resource that does not come cheap to a defence committee that has to deal with simultaneous challenges, David Allen Green being just one. Something of this length and detail ought to have taken three years to produce.

I did not merely tell you that Julian was “very busy”. You know that. What I did say was that he was very busy and that we were a very small core team. Your email asking for a response to the David Allen Green piece was written the day after Julian made his first speech in public since he had entered the embassy, four days after he formally obtained asylum and only five days after the embassy was surrounded by more than 50 Metropolitan police who were preparing to force their way into the diplomatic mission to get him. On top of this, we were still publishing the Syria Files and we had just begun a new release, the Detainee Policies. I told you that since the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility none of the world’s media and none of the world’s NGOs had released a single Guantanamo Bay Manual, and we had just released our third. During all of this, we were also dealing with the vitriol coming from the UK establishment media while Julian was having his asylum claim evidence reviewed. He was (and still is) in fear of being extradited onwards to the United States, he had not been outside in more than two months, and he was overseeing the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents.
Over a lunch you questioned this fear of extradition to the US, and when I asked you what you would do in his position you refused to answer the question. I asked you more than six times what you would do in his shoes. Having offered to cooperate with the Swedish investigation non-stop for the past two years and been refused with no proper explanation, and believing that you would end up in an American prison for decades, in solitary confinement and under SAMs, what would you do? You never gave me a concrete answer. Instead, you skirted the question with another question and discounted the numerous legal opinions out there, favouring instead an article by David Allen Green. I reiterated that Julian had never said that it would be likely in practice that he would face the death penalty, although the Espionage Act permits this. But more to the point, and one that everyone always ignores, there was (and still is) the fear of being extradited to face life imprisonment and almost certainly torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment for his publishing activities.
I told you that the Swedish authorities could, if they wanted to, charge Julian in absentia. Even if they were to do that, they should, according to their own procedures, conduct an interview with him before requesting his extradition. I repeated that he remains available even in the embassy for questioning by the Swedish authorities should they wish to employ the standard procedures they use regularly in other cases.
I explained to you how the argument that “he is no more vulnerable to extradition to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK” is a red herring. I explained why the US had not already requested his extradition from the UK, because this would create a case of competing extradition requests that the Home Secretary would have to judicially review and prioritise one over the other, thereby creating political embarrassment for a major ally whichever way the decision went. I cited the US Ambassador’s own admission that the US would wait to see what happened with the Swedish case before they made a move. I was careful to explain this with Jennifer Robinson present to add a legal perspective if needed. However, in spite of this explanation, you allowed this claim not only to go into your article but also to remain in Gibney’s film – expressed in remarks made by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC that have been misleadingly edited to remove their proper context. She has since said that she “did not expect that he [Gibney] would fillet my interview” and also says “I regret thinking I could present a sensible perspective”.

Irrespective of my explanations and those of two lawyers whose counsel you seek yourself, you could have spoken to Julian in person. He did call you – more than once. You could have called back. You could have come to visit him to check on his well-being, as many others have done. On that note, you were never invited just for a “photo opportunity”. You were invited to the embassy by us in September but you heard that there was a paparazzi waiting outside the embassy. This is no great surprise following the biggest diplomatic incident in recent years. However, you knew about it beforehand and avoided it. Then I relayed a request from Vivienne Westwood’s team, asking you if you would model her “I am Julian Assange” t-shirt at her fashion show. The request came after you had already said you were unavailable even to attend her show. This was her idea and her request. She was trying to do something to help us and thought you would want to do the same. You were also invited to visit Julian shortly after he entered the embassy on 22nd June; for tea and cake on his birthday on 3rd July; for a sureties’ get-together in late July; for afternoon tea on 11th September and again on the 9th October; and for a breakfast meeting on the 21st December. All of which you declined. These are all times when you could have asked Julian in person about your issues. As you will recall from your discussion the last time you saw him, in December 2011, he enjoys debate and disagreement. How do you know that Julian had not seen the Gibney film by the time it premiered? We do not steal secrets but people leak things to us. Irrespective of the “ironic” meaning behind the title of the film you claim it has, it will not be understood by the general public with that meaning. What they will see is a straightforward conjunction of a quote, a proper noun and the word “story”, and they will read it as such. It is tantamount to someone doing a documentary about you and calling it “I am a War Apologist: The Jemima Khan Story” because they had interviewed someone completely unrelated to you and quoted them saying “I am a war apologist”.
It is one thing to publicly disagree with someone, or even to distance oneself in public from a former ally, but it is quite another to use one’s own publication to the further harm of a political refugee suffering the persecution of a superpower. I imagine you must have vetted the magazine cover, which claims that Julian is ‘alone’. Julian is not alone. That New Statesman front page was used to harm the entire WikiLeaks project out of disaffection. It was also an attempt to cast a shadow on all his allies. And yet you were the one who said: “he needs friends not enemies..”. Julian has both friends and enemies. He does not need or seek friends who only agree with him (in fact, I have not met one non-argumentative friend of his) but he certainly does not need friends who are in fact enemies.
From the point of view of defending a film in which you feature as “Executive Producer”, your actions are straightforward: your name is on the credits of a dated WikiLeaks documentary with a prejudicial title which features all the hostile people who haven’t had anything to do with WikiLeaks in years. You chose a production credit over principle and in doing so attacked a vulnerable political activist and fellow journalist, something which I know to be beneath you.

In disappointment,
Joseph Farrell
The WikiLeaks response David Allen Green’s New Statesman article is now on:

Jemima Khan’s New Statesman article can be found here and John Pilger’s response to it is here. Alex Gibney’s response to John Pilger’s article can be found here, WikiLeaks response to it can be found in the article’s comments section and there is a correction of the facts of the article by John Pilger at the bottom.

Bradley Manning and ‘Nathaniel Frank’ – The U.S. Government’s case against WikiLeaks

On the 28th February 2013, at Fort Meade, Maryland, Bradley Manning pleaded guilty to ten of 22 charges the U.S. Army had brought against him. Each of these offences carries a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment, making a total of 20 years in prison. Any sentence is to be reduced by 112 days after Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge, ruled that Manning had suffered excessively harsh treatment during his pre-trail detention at Quantico marine base in Virginia from 29 July 2010 to 20 April 2011. Manning also pleaded not guilty to 12 other charges, which included a charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ (which carries a potential death penalty), and a charge that falls under the Espionage Act. Bradley Manning read a 35-page statement to the court detailing and explaining his actions and his motives for disclosing what he “believed, and still believe.. are some of the most significant documents of our time.”

The government, however, argued a motion (26th February) objecting to parts of the plea and had a problem with Manning reading his statement to the court. From a report by Kevin Gosztola:

“Morrow [US govt prosecutor] went over some of the portions in the statement that the government specifically objects to being read in court. One of them talks about “staying in contact” with Nathaniel and how Manning thought he was “developing a friendship”. They would talk about not only the publications WikiLeaks was working (on). He later realized he valued the friendship himself more than Nathaniel. (‘Nathaniel Frank’, the name on the account the government has claimed was being used by WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, though no actual proof of him sending messages to Manning has been presented).

The judge asked how this would be prejudicial if he talked about it. Morrow said he couldn’t articulate why. The judge decided she would go through and look at portions. The government should look at portions and, if they find aspects that suggest conduct that would bring discredit to the military, raise it in court.”

The U.S. government’s objection to a section of Bradley Manning’s statement (which describes his contact with ‘Nathaniel Frank’) being read out in the courtroom and their refusal to explain why they objected, indicates that it might severely damage the U.S. government’s Grand Jury case against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. In the end, despite the objections, Manning was permitted to read out the ‘Nathaniel Frank’ section. It appears that Manning understood ‘Nathaniel Frank’ to be a senior member of WikiLeaks codenamed ‘Ox’ and that Manning later came to believe that ‘Ox’ was either Julian Assange or Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Manning says that he encouraged ‘Ox’ to use the handle ‘Nathaniel Frank,’ who, in real life, is a U.S. Army veteran campaigner for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America”.

On the 19th December 2011 (day four of the pre-trial hearing), prosecutors disclosed three excerpts of alleged Bradley Manning (who was using the name ‘nobody’) and ‘Nathaniel Frank’ chat logs. They had been taken from 14 to 15 pages of chats (.XML format), which had been recovered from an unallocated space on the hard drive of Bradley Manning’s Macintosh laptop by Mark Johnson, a digital forensics contractor for ManTech International who works for the Army’s Computer Crime Investigative Unit. Mark Johnson was able to decrypt the chat logs when it was discovered that Manning’s laptop login password ‘TWink1492!!’ was also used as the encryption key.

Bradley Manning allegedly used the Adium chat program and had attached Julian Assange’s name to the chat handle ‘’ ( refers to the Chaos Computer Club). This is the Jabber address domain name mentioned in the infamous Bradley Manning / Adrian Lamo chat log which was turned over to U.S. Army authorities by Adrian Lamo:

(8:03:29 AM) bradass87: he does use OTR though… but discusses nothing OPSEC

(8:03:42 AM) I cornered Ashcroft IRL, in the end.

(8:04:19 AM) bradass87: he *might* use the jabber server.. but you didn’t hear that from me

(8:04:33 AM) gotcha

Bradley Manning’s buddy list also contained a second handle, ‘,’ which had two names attached to it: Julian Assange and ‘Nathaniel Frank’. In testimony, Mark Johnson thought that it was odd to assign two names to a single Jabber account, and implied that there was something significantly untoward in such an anomaly.

During the night shift at SCIF (Joint Operations Center/Secure Compartment Information Facility) in Iraq, Bradley Manning allegedly burned a CD containing the JTF-GITMO documents (classified assessment reports about Guantanamo Bay detainees) which he then uploaded to WikiLeaks. The chat logs between ‘nobody’ and ‘Nathaniel Frank’ (8th March 2010) contain a request to re-send some unspecified data as well as the use of SFTP for uploading data securely to an FTP server. Mark Johnson believes this means that the parties had communicated before. Mark Johnson also testified that SSH logs show this FTP server has an IP address ( associated with a Swedish ISP called PRQ which he believes is, in turn, associated with WikiLeaks.

Nobody: Anyway I’m throwing everything I got on JTF-GTMO at you now.. should take a while to get up though

Nathaniel Frank: OK, great

Nobody: Uploaded about 36 pct.

Nathaniel Frank: ETA?

Nobody: 11-12 hours, guessing since it’s been going 6 already

In another chat log (which has not been fully reproduced by any media outlet that has cited it), ‘nobody’ asks ‘Nathaniel Frank’ to help him crack the password on his SIPRnet computer and states that this involves IM NT hashes (there is no such thing as IM NT hashes, but it is possible that this is a typo for NTLM – Microsoft NT LAN Manager). This is supposedly so that he can log on to the system without leaving any traces of his activity. ‘Nathaniel Frank’ replies that “yes” he has experience of such things and that they use “rainbow tables” to open hashes. Mark Johnson then stated that “nobody” then sent ‘Nathaniel Frank’ something that appeared to be a hash and tellingly does not mention anything being sent back.

Based on prior court discussions and rulings in open sessions, we might anticipate that Manning will plead not guilty as charged to:

Specification 1, Charge III – ‘In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, US Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 8 March 2010, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-5(a) (4), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by attempting to bypass network or information system security mechanisms.’

With regard to: Specification 1, Charge III – government attorney Capt. Ashden Fein stated that the State Department server had logged 794,000 connections from Bradley Manning’s SCIF computer, which recorded “minute-to-minute” the transfer of 250,000 cables (which allegedly took “all of his working hours over 10 days” to download) as well as Bradley Manning’s searches of the Pentagon’s SIPRNet (it is alleged that data-mining software “unauthorized software” [Wget] was used on two occasions) and that there was direct evidence of Bradley Manning uploading the documents to WikiLeaks.

Simple deduction shows that ‘Nathaniel Frank’ (no evidence has been submitted showing that this is in fact Julian Assange or anyone else associated with WikiLeaks) did not assist Bradley Manning’s alleged attempts to bypass the SIPRNet security system because Bradley Manning never made any attempt to do this or to hide his activities. In the 35-page personal statement read out to the court on the 28th Febuary, Bradley Manning stated “I never hid the fact that I downloaded copies of CIDNE-I (Iraq War Logs) and CIDNE-A (Afghan War Diary) and burned them onto CDs”. Manning said that he did this as a normal “part of his work,” making back-ups for when the system crashed and for faster searching. He stored the CDs “in the open” at his unit’s tactical operations center and did not hide his use of downloaded compression software to help facilitate the transfer.

The only available material on the three ‘Nathaniel Frank’ chat logs (Bradley Manning’s personal statement does not address the content of the logs) was published by the mainstream press. It is extremely difficult to interpret the fragmented source material – independent of the source material’s housing – which is clearly constructed to convey the impression that ‘Nathaniel Frank’ is definitely Julian Assange and that the chat log is the ‘smoking gun’ of his assistance to Bradley Manning in gaining access (in many reports it is suggested that SIPRNet was hacked by Manning) or anonymous access. Putting the fragments together in a more realistic pattern suggests this:

2:15:57 PM) bradass87: they also caught wind that he (Julian Assange) had a video.. of the Gharani airstrike in Afghanistan (which killed nearly 100 civilians, most of them childrenthis file was later deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg to the immense relief of the Pentagon), which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet.. the production team was actually working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really encrypted.

The conversation between ‘Nathaniel Frank’ and Bradley Manning that seems to fit Specification 1, Charge III – most likely relates to decrypting data already transferred to WikiLeaks. By the time this conversation took place (8th of March 2010), Bradley Manning had already accessed and leaked material from SIPRNet numerous times. U.S. prosecutors say that the Gharani airstrike video (BE22 PAX.wmv) was leaked first, most likely occurring by 8th January 2010, and so to attempt to hide future activity was by then absurd. Bradley Manning’s access level was not unusual; 4.2 million U.S. military, federal employees, contractors, and consultants have security clearances for SIPRNet which had been ‘opened up’ post 9/11 to enable sharing across the so-called ‘intelligence community’ – there was no need for him to hack into it. The U.S. government’s second-highest level of classified information, “Secret”, is held on SIPRNet, “Top Secret” information is shared via the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS). Bradley Manning would have had to hack into JWICS to access its data, but he did not.

According to Bradley Manning’s plea statement, he interpreted his relationship with ‘Nathaniel Frank’ as being one of “friendship”. However, this was an entirely subjective perspective on the part of Manning, the initial circumspect nature of ‘Nathaniel Frank’s interaction with Manning indicates the professional approach of a journalist dealing with an anonymous source. Later the communication was mostly one way, with ‘Nathaniel Frank’ replying in a polite and sympathetic manner. In Bradley Manning’s statement he tells his story about ‘Nathaniel Frank’, saying that while he “enjoyed the ability to discuss pretty much anything, in retrospect, I realize these dynamics were artificial. They were valued more to me than Nathaniel”.

(2:05:38 PM) bradass87: i mean, im a high profile source.. and i’ve developed a relationship with assange.. but i dont know much more than what he (‘Nathaniel Frank’) tells me, which is very little

Bradley Manning also stated “No one associated with the WLO [WikiLeaks Organization] pressured me to give them more information. The decision to give documents to WikiLeaks [was] mine alone”. Manning said he took “full responsibility” and that he wanted the information to become public “to make the world a better place”.

The UN special rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez, formally accused the U.S. government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning after a 14-month investigation. The most likely reasoning behind this treatment was to coerce Bradely Manning into providing the U.S. government with evidence against WikiLeaks. This appalling tactic failed. It now appears that his interactions with WikiLeaks can provide little of interest to those pursuing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Further, Bradely Manning is not the type of character who would provide false evidence to the U.S. government out of self-interest or from being mentally and emotionally broken.

Until the ‘Nathaniel Frank’ chat logs are fully disclosed, forensically tested and verified by independent experts, we will not know for certain the truth of the U.S. government’s case against Julian Assange. This evidence will almost certainly be disclosed and tested during Bradley Manning’s full court-martial, which is due to begin in June 2013. Charges of “conspiracy to commit espionage” and “soliciting or encouraging” Bradley Manning to commit crimes will either fall apart or persist around the ‘Nathaniel Frank’ logs.

Michael Ratner, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was at Bradley Manning’s plea hearing: “There were two people [in the court] who were identified to me as lawyers on the grand jury that’s sitting in Virginia. That tells us that the grand jury is still active and ongoing, and that they are still after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.”

The grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks began on the 29th November 2010, when U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder stated that the Justice Department was pursuing “an active, ongoing criminal investigation” into WikiLeaks. More than 250,000 U.S. State Department cables had been released by WikiLeaks the day before. That as part of this investigation, eight FBI agents arrived unannounced on a private jet in Iceland on the 24th August 2011 to interview a WikiLeaks associate (who sold t-shirts to raise funds for the organization), only to be told by Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson to “pack their bags, embark the plane and leave the country”, shows a certain desperation. Ögmundur Jónasson also stated in the Alþingi (the Icelandic parliament), that the FBI had intended to use the teenager they questioned, Sigurður Þórðarson (aka Siggi ‘the hacker’), as bait in their investigation of WikiLeaks. Þórðarson has stated that, despite five days of ‘questioning’, he refused to work for the FBI. The Icelandic Commissioner of the National Police and the Icelandic State Prosecutor are currently investigating violations against the Icelandic state by the FBI. Such antics suggest that the ‘Nathaniel Frank’ logs and other forensic evidence amount only to evidence of serious journalism.

A letter from the Sam Adams Associates to The Guardian regarding ‘Julian Assange finds no allies’ by Amelia Hill

On the 23rd January 2013 the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence presented this year’s award to Dr Tom Fingar at a ceremony co-hosted with the Oxford Union Society. Julian Assange gave an address live via Videolink and then engaged with the audience in a question-and-answer session.

The next day The Guardian attacks Julian Assange: Julian Assange finds no allies and tough queries in Oxford University talk, 24th January 2013, by Amelia Hill. The article refers to a Guardian writer Simone Webb “Waving her anti-Assange banner while around 400 undergraduates queued to get into the hall, Simone Webb, the protest organiser, insisted the demonstration was not a stand against free speech.” In an article of 611 words, 74 are spent describing the event, the rest is an attack, of which 154 are given to anti-Assange banner waving Simone Webb and 91 are given to someone called Savage who “was left sanguine” by Julian Assange’s polite answer to her question. This distorted article is comprehensively dissected and dismantled by M Cetera here.

The article was so disgraceful that the Sam Adams Associates responded to it in ‘a letter to the Guardian‘.
Later the same day (29th January) The Guardian reproduced a heavily edited version of the letter:


Dear Sir

With regard to the 24 January article in The Guardian entitled “Julian Assange Finds No Allies and Tough Queries in Oxford University Talk,” we question whether the newspaper’s reporter was actually present at the event, since the account contains so many false and misleading statements.

If The Guardian could “find no allies” of Mr. Julian Assange (Report, 24 January), it did not look very hard! They could be found among the appreciative audience of the packed Oxford Union Debate Hall, and – in case you missed us – in the group seated right at the front of the Hall: the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

Many in our group — which, you might be interested to know co-sponsored the event with Oxford Union — had traveled considerable distances at our own expense to confer the 10th annual Sam Adams award to Dr. Thomas Fingar for his work on overseeing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that revealed the lack of an Iranian nuclear weaponization program since 2003.

Many of us spoke in turn about the need for integrity in intelligence, describing the terrible ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who witness illegal activity including serious threats to public safety and fraud, waste and abuse.

But However, none of this, nor any aspect of Dr. Fingar’s acceptance speech, made it into what was supposed to pass for a news your article; neither did any aspect of the acceptance speech delivered by Dr. Fingar. Also, why did The Guardian fail to provide even one salient quote from Mr Assange’s substantial twenty-minute address?

By censoring the contributions of the Sam Adams Associates and the speeches by Dr. Fingar and Mr. Assange, and by focusing exclusively on tawdry and unproven allegations against Mr. Assange, rather than on the importance of exposing war crimes and maintaining integrity in intelligence processes, The Guardian has succeeded in diminishing none but itself.


The Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence:

Ann Wright (retired Army Colonel and Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst), Elizabeth Murray (retired CIA analyst), Coleen Rowley (retired FBI agent), Annie Machon (former MI5 intelligence officer), Thomas Drake (former NSA official), Craig Murray (former British Ambassador), David MacMichael (retired CIA analyst), Brady Kiesling (former Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), and Todd Pierce (retired U.S. Army Major, Judge Advocate, Guantanamo Defense Counsel).
Original Versions:

Letters. Assange’s allies. The Guardian, Tuesday 29 January 2013 9 pm

If the Guardian could “find no allies” of Julian Assange (Report, 24 January), it did not look very hard. They could be found among the appreciative audience at the Oxford Union, and in our group seated at the front: the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Many in our group, which co-sponsored the event, had travelled considerable distances to confer the 10th annual Sam Adams award on Dr Thomas Fingar for his work overseeing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that revealed the absence of an Iranian nuclear weaponisation programme since 2003. Many of us spoke about the need for integrity in intelligence, describing the ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who witness illegal activity, including serious threats to public safety. However, none of this, nor any aspect of Dr Fingar’s acceptance speech, made it into your article.

Ann Wright Retired US army colonel and foreign service officer of US state department, Ray McGovern Retired CIA analyst, Elizabeth Murray Retired CIA analyst, Coleen Rowley Retired FBI agent, Annie Machon Former MI5 intelligence officer, Thomas Drake Former National Security Agency official, Craig Murray Former British ambassador, David MacMichael Retired CIA analyst, Brady Kiesling Former foreign service officer, US department of state, Todd Pierce Retired US army major, judge advocate, Guantánamo defence counsel
Letter to the Guardian, 29 January 2013:

Dear Sir

With regard to the 24 January article in the Guardian entitled “Julian Assange Finds No Allies and Tough Queries in Oxford University Talk,” we question whether the newspaper’s reporter was actually present at the event, since the account contains so many false and misleading statements.

If the Guardian could “find no allies” of Mr. Assange, it did not look very hard! They could be found among the appreciative audience of the packed Oxford Union Debate Hall, and – in case you missed us – in the group seated right at the front of the Hall: the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

Many in our group – which, you might be interested to know co-sponsored the event with Oxford Union – had traveled considerable distances at our own expense to confer the 10th annual Sam Adams award to Dr. Thomas Fingar for his work on overseeing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that revealed the lack of an Iranian nuclear weaponization program.

Many of us spoke in turn about the need for integrity in intelligence, describing the terrible ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who witness illegal activity including serious threats to public safety and fraud, waste and abuse.

But none of this made it into what was supposed to pass for a news article; neither did any aspect of the acceptance speech delivered by Dr. Fingar. Also, why did the Guardian fail to provide even one salient quote from Mr Assange’s substantial twenty-minute address?

By censoring the contributions of the Sam Adams Associates and the speeches by Dr. Fingar and Mr. Assange, and by focusing exclusively on tawdry and unproven allegations against Mr. Assange, rather than on the importance of exposing war crimes and maintaining integrity in intelligence processes, the Guardian has succeeded in diminishing none but itself.


The Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence:

Ann Wright (retired Army Colonel and Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst), Elizabeth Murray (retired CIA analyst), Coleen Rowley (retired FBI agent), Annie Machon (former MI5 intelligence officer), Thomas Drake (former NSA official), Craig Murray (former British Ambassador), David MacMichael (retired CIA analyst), Brady Kiesling (former Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), and Todd Pierce (retired U.S. Army Major, Judge Advocate, Guantanamo Defense Counsel).