Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines

March 29, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
x

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What Is Sex For?
I Am Brian Wilson
Truthdig Bazaar more items
A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Julian Assange Speaks to ‘60 Minutes’

Posted on Jan 31, 2011

The WikiLeaks founder dishes to Steve Kroft, who tells Assange “you are screwing with the forces of nature.” For his part, Assange insists that whatever his problems with the United States, he shares values of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Assange’s Defense, The New York Times and Daniel Ellsberg:

Square, Site wide
Lockerdome Below Article

More from this topic

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Marshall, February 9, 2011 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

By Shingo, February 4 at 9:04 am

<<What difference does it make to you what timetable he keeps?>>

The longer it takes the more It undermines his claims that he’s doing this
purely in the public interest, that it’s not a “poison pill”, and if he has
actionable material it’s wasting potentially valuable time to adjudicate any
wrong doing.

<<Why is it wrong?  The material belogs to the public.  It’s not private.>>

Actually - it is.  It’s classified.  Public has no access rights to classified material
until its declassified.

<<It’s never been a court’s job to release classified material to the puiblic>>

It’s the court’s decision during trial to decide what evidence should remain
classified, since evidence becomes public.

<<The only consequences are that those who’ve lied to the public or been up
to no good have been exposed.>>

That’s a court’s decision, not Assange’s.  The potential consequences of
releasing classified information are well known and thus legally protected.

<<But they don’t and the Federal government is notirious for declaring
whatever it does to be legal.>>

I don’t agree with that assessment since there are obviously numerous
historical examples of executive and legislative branches being held
accountable for wrong doing.  There are always those within the system that
are in opposition to the powers that be and will take advantage of opportunities
to exploit such wrong doing.

I’m not holding Assange to a higher standard than news organizations - I’m
holding him to the SAME standard.  NYT can be prosecuted for revealing
classified information (there are even questions now despite the fact that the
info they released would have been released by Assange).

Corporate information is a different animal btw.  The laws don’t protect its
release like they do classified information.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 5, 2011 at 6:33 am Link to this comment

If Julian Assange and Wiki-Leaks were a function of the CIA, it is the first decent activity since former
ambassador Wilson debunked the “yellow cake” fairy-tale, for which Bush-NAZIs scapegoated his wife,
Valerie Plame-Wilson. Clearly, treason, for which none of the NAZI-types have been punished.  And, the
U.S. Congress permits comrade Rove to tell them to kiss his ass, he will not testify?  The U.S.Congress permits this?  Permission to force him to talk or prosecute will probably never be granted by the NAZI and Israeli-types, who manipulate the U.S. Congress, and protect their own moles.

If Wiki-Leaks were a function of the CIA, it reflects the American element of the CIA that continues to exist in spite of the WWII-NAZI-Bush covey, joined in the meantime by the israeli MOSSAD. The israeli MOSSAD, whom some allege to have set the explosives in the World Trade Center.  And the 3rd building, nothing, compared to the twin towers.  But, where did the tons of C-5 come from ?

World-wide intelligence agencies had most of the information prior to the 9-11 event, and all the facts shortly thereafter, especially Russian and German intelligence.  The facts were presented a little over a year later in the first publication of “The CIA and the 11th of September,” by Andreas von Buelow.  Von Buelow is a former insider in German intelligence.  Re-issues of the book are equally accurate.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 4, 2011 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

Providing inside details more fully describes the total
scene.  Which total scene requires many volumes to
explain.  The direction remained monolithic, has
tightened up since 2000 and accelerated since 2004. 

Which is why some experts say there is no difference
between the Rep and Dem “factions,” excepting the in-
fighting for dominance that exists between the two.

Which has been somewhat placed in relief by Wiki-Leaks
activities.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 4, 2011 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

RE: Between 1981 and 2000, the USGov became increasingly
monolithic.

agreed - on the face of it - but in the shadows, operatives continually subvert
everything - factions vie mercilessly for advantage: e.g.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21380.html

<B>Obama Preparing to Attack Iran<?b>
Politics / US Politics
Jul 25, 2010 - 08:14 AM
By: Global_Research

Webster G. Tarpley writes: After about two and a half years during which the
danger of war between the United States and Iran was at a relatively low level,
this threat is now rapidly increasing. A pattern of political and diplomatic
events, military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-
American ruling circles, acting through the troubled Obama administration, are
currently gearing up for a campaign of bombing against Iran, combined with
special forces incursions designed to stir up rebellions among the non-Persian
nationalities of the Islamic Republic. Naturally, the probability of a new fake
Gulf of Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American
war party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.

The moment in the recent past when the US came closest to attacking Iran was
August-September 2007, at about the time of the major Israeli bombing raid
on Syria.1 This was the phase during which the Cheney faction in effect
hijacked a fully loaded B-52 bomber equipped with six nuclear-armed cruise
missiles, and attempted to take it to the Middle East outside of the command
and control of the Pentagon, presumably to be used in a colossal provocation
designed by the private rogue network for which Cheney was the visible face. A
few days before the B-52 escaped control of legally constituted US authorities,
a group of antiwar activists issued The Kennebunkport Warning of August 24-
25, 2007, which had been drafted by the present writer.2 It was very significant
that US institutional forces acted at that time to prevent the rogue B-52 from
proceeding on its way towards the Middle East. The refusal to let the rogue B-
52 take off reflected a growing consensus in the US military-intelligence
community and the ruling elite in general that the Bush-Cheney-neocon policy
of direct military aggression towards all comers had become counterproductive
and very dangerous, running the risk of a terminal case of imperial
overstretch.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 4, 2011 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

“US govt. is not monolithic.  Judicial branch has
every power to prosecute and plenty of supporters in
doing so.” (Marshall)

Between 1981 and 2000, the USGov became increasingly
monolithic. Since 2000 it has been monolithic in the
true sense of the word.  Otherwise, the “Patriot Act”
and “Department of Homeland Security” would not
exist. Only two of numerous examples. Excepting the
crossfiring in the skirmish for dominance between the
Rep and Dem “factions,” the direction of US
government is unidirectional or monolithic.

As far as the judicial branch and power and pimps to
prosecute in the monolithic USGov direction, this is
obvious.  And the pattern established is very
saddening, for an alleged “republic.”  The “republic”
element of US government has been essentially voided
by “executive privilege” or “presidential directive”
since 2000.

The legal scholar John Roll applied constitutional
law in a decision which hindered the machinations of
a few Hitler-NAZI-types who want to render the
citizenry defenceless.  However, such assassinations
will not hinder genuine American judges who
comprehend the meaning of:  “And I say unto you, My
friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body,
and after that have no more that they can do.  But I
will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him that,
after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell;
yea, I say unto you, fear Him! “

Report this

By Shingo, February 4, 2011 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

Marshall, February 4 at 7:48 am

>> Again - if he has proof of wrong doing, he should release ‘em.

He hasn’t said he wont.  When he appeared for a press conference where he was haded the CD with files of banking transactions, he said it would take weeks to sort through it.  He’s already explained a number of times that Wikileaks is under resources to cope with all the material that has come in.

What difference does it make to you what timetable he keeps?

>> Difference between biased reporting and, say, releasing names of undercover operatives, tactics and mission details.  Assange has admitted this himself.

It sounds to me like you’re holding Assange to higher standards that any other reporter. In any case, Gates has confirmed that no undercover operatives, tactics and mission details have been released. 

>> True for Assange.  For him, classified=newsworthy.  This is wrong.  Assange is not a court, though he plays one on tv.

Why is it wrong?  The material belogs to the public.  It’s not private.

>>  Not even a court would release classified evidence publicly during the course of a trial but Assange has no
regard for the consequences of playing judge and jury.

It’s never been a court’s job to release classified material to the puiblic, so there is no comparison.  The only consequences are that those who’ve lied to the public or been up to no good have been exposed.

That’s a good thing.

>> US govt. is not monolithic.  Judicial branch has every power to prosecute and plenty of supporters in doing so.

But they don’t and the Federal government is notirious for declaring whatever it does to be legal.

Report this

By Marshall, February 4, 2011 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

By Shingo, February 2 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

“Financial instruments have become so complex that the average man on the
street wouldn’t know what to make of most financial transactions.”

Again - if he has proof of wrong doing, he should release ‘em.

“If recklessness was a misdemeanor worthy of precluding journalists from
reporting, then half the reporters at the New Yourk Times would be out of work
and Fox wouldn’t have a new channel.”

Difference between biased reporting and, say, releasing names of undercover
operatives, tactics and mission details.  Assange has admitted this himself.

“Illegality itself does not determine if something is newsworthy”

True for Assange.  For him, classified=newsworthy.  This is wrong.  Assange is
not a court, though he plays one on tv.  Not even a court would release
classified evidence publicly during the course of a trial but Assange has no
regard for the consequences of playing judge and jury.

“US government reserves the right to proclaim all of it’s activities as legal.”

US govt. is not monolithic.  Judicial branch has every power to prosecute and
plenty of supporters in doing so.

“That’s because the Western world realized a century ago that empire and
colinialism was a bad idea.”

Empire is what you make it.  There are good ones and bad ones and i believe
ours is relatively benign.

Report this

By diamond, February 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

“perhaps I wasn’t polite enough highlighting your impotent rhetoric, O Bishi-sama,
anyone following the thread sees clearly the only ‘ranting’ is yours - poor thing…
it must be so small.”

I know what you meant and so do you. Your use of the word ‘impotent’ gives the game away in that regard. Just another lie to add to the growing mountain.

Report this

By samosamo, February 3, 2011 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

****************

 

By glider, February 3 at 5:29 pm

Here we go again.  And yes it is splitting hairs but just as who
really saw Tunisia Egypt and others happening, it should
presume that hopefully some act would unite people in this
country to do something. It does take more than talking like and
Egyptian, it out right requires walking like and Egyptian even if it
was boycotting or striking(which I would rather think that there
are contingencies for that happening).

But the voting, it would be like the lottery. Extremely lucky for
outraged people to ‘coincidentally’ vote a 3rd party into the white
house which is NOT enough. They would also have to
miraculously vote 3rd party representatives and senators into
congress.

When it gets down to those odds, it is purely due to the
mainstream media controlling the crowd and hopefully(I am tired
of hoping) these new venues as wikileaks, rt, asia times et al will
somehow get more air time on a dreaded msm channel.

It is hard to ‘come up with a plan’ or fight back against long
thought plans and agendas and to do so will be just like the
odds again on who or what will take the place of the old. The
whole of today and into the future does absolutely nothing to
give hope that the up coming 10,000 year reich will not happen.

Report this

By glider, February 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

Samosamo, I hear what you are saying but this is hair splitting.  The Corporatocracy is analogous to being a force of nature because it is solid and relatively unlikely to change through our fixed “democratic” process.  Still you can vote for the next Corporate candidate and “Hope” these forces will “Change” but I think this is dreaming.  Yes, maybe we will have a revolution and so the analogy is not perfect.  But it gets at the key point.  Assange is fucking with the entrenched power structure.  And that and his good intentions make him a hero.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 3, 2011 at 4:42 am Link to this comment

RE: ...penis… oh dear, how confused - if one must spell it out: the mirror… what else? and as before, O Bishi-sama, I will again leave you to fight with yourself and your little straw man in your little shrinking mirror - for as desperately as you want it, you’ll get no fight from me: no rants, no harangues no name calling; just questions and suggestions of where to look for possible answers and lines of thought to broaden perspectives, beyond mere opinion - and again: condolences both to you and to all around who must endure

Report this

By diamond, February 3, 2011 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

‘it must be so small’.

I don’t have a penis, dimwit, because I am not and never have been a man. But if you’re talking about your brain then you’ve faced your problem at last.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 2, 2011 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

perhaps I wasn’t polite enough highlighting your impotent rhetoric, O Bishi-sama,
anyone following the thread sees clearly the only ‘ranting’ is yours - poor thing…
it must be so small

Report this

By diamond, February 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

..biased and baseless rantings…not being a practitioner…himself.
(?!?) citations please:  1) rantings   2) gender

Get over yourself: your gender doesn’t interest me in the slightest. The bias and the baseless rantings are self-evident and don’t need a citation. And all your bitchy little girl gossip on who said what to who when, reminds me of a bunch of girls at a boarding school after lights out saying things about another girl who they envy but cannot emulate.

‘Perhaps it would have been helpful if Mr. Assange had explained to Kroft just exactly who Jefferson and Madison were.’

Now why couldn’t you write something witty like that? Because you’re a tool yourself, on a mission of misinformation, that’s why.

“Assange is quite obviously a refined intellectual. The interviewer, on the other hand, is a bit too dull and obtuse to be interviewing someone of his caliber.”

TRUTH, AT LAST!

“wanting so desperately to believe, that finally there is salvation from the
treacherously compromised MSM, is fully understandable, but…”

On the other hand, lies, as usual.

Report this

By samosamo, February 2, 2011 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

****************

 

“”“By glider, February 2 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
And what is so wrong about the “force of nature” comment? 
Granted it is not the most accurate analogy, but it suggests that
Wikileaks is up against a powerful force which is in no way
related to our governments fraudulent presentation of itself as
being a “democracy”.  It is more consistent with its
“corporatocracy” true identity.”“”“
******************

It isn’t so wrong, but it would seemingly tend to reinforce
people’s idea that it is a force that is unbreakable and that, it is
not. The break could come from any number of things but for
now it is a significant force, else, why to people come to
truthdid, common dreams, rt, asia times, al jareeza, several of
the british media venue.

Granted it is not the best analogy but when is comes from the
american mainstream media along with no more reaction to the
‘bank of america’ as a part of the economic problems, it bears
the all to familiar msm screed that this country is doing fine and
is recovering from a ‘bad time’. Also the time line or limits just
don’t allow for parsing any and everything an interview with
Assange would reveal.

I see the whole of wikileaks as what kroft and the rest of msm
america should be doing and kroft to me played it as they WERE
doing what they were supposed to be doing. And as I said, at
least this was played to the msm’s dumbstream garden whether
many or any of them picked up or thought they may need to
question what the msm is pumping out as information is suspect
to being affective.

The american mainstream media’s creed or logo sure seems to
be:
A mind is a great thing to waste.

Report this

By firefly, February 2, 2011 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

Shingo,

I think you’re missing the point.

Joe Public may well not have the time to sift through
documents, but that should make them all the more
aware that they are entirely reliant on the honesty
and balanced judgement of those that do it on their
behalf and report back to them.

The problem with the American press today (since
Reagan), is that honesty, objectivity and neutrality
about the facts have gone out the window.

Today, all we get is demagoguery and it is impossible
to trust the source, who usually has a political
agenda.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 2, 2011 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

“In your country it’s probably legal for your government to accuse someone of a crime in public and get away with it.” (Shingo)

Increasingly standard practice in the U.S.A., thanks to the GHWBushSr entourage.
    Such as in the case of
Mrs. Kelly Williams-Bolar, and her children, and her father? 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_mind_is
_a_terrible_thing_to_wasteexcept_in_ohio_20110129/

    Such as the Obama Attorney General is trying to do to several states for enforcing the U.S. immigration laws? 

    Similar to courts upholding lawsuits by Monsanto against small farmers, whose lands and crops are being polluted by the Dr. Mengele-defective seeds and pollutants?  When these farmers were not even aware of the cross-pollination by the Monsanto-defective-organisms.

    And on and on and on.

Report this

By Shingo, February 2, 2011 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

  But in other countries to lie and mislead about any given individual is tantamount to public slander—and is a civil offense.

Civil but not criminal.  In your country it’s probably legal for your government to accuse someone of a crime in public and get away with it.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, February 2, 2011 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

SLANDER IS AS SLANDER DOES

Shin: It’s not illegal to lie and mislead, but it is certainly newsworthy.

Perhaps not in your country.

But in other countries to lie and mislead about any given individual is tantamount to public slander—and is a civil offense. (Slander = the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.)

And because it is not a crime in the US, and because one cannot ask a court for damages,  is perhaps why there is so much character assassination rotting away the public’s perception of their political class.

Why are there not ethical journalistic standards regarding either public figures or public matters? Why are falsehoods and innuendo thrown up for public consumption only to be slammed down when the truth is dug out and published. Why?

Because there’s money to be made in such unethical journalism. And where money is the only criteria, then crime will pay.

Report this

By Shingo, February 2, 2011 at 5:58 am Link to this comment

a) Don’t recall Assange making this argument which would insult the public
anyway since everyone has access to what he chooses, not just press.

Answer: Sorry but the average Joe still relies on the press to sift through the mountains of documents and decide what is newsworthy.  That’s not an isult to the public, but an aknowledgement that Joe public doesn’t have the time to sift through them.

b) Why would anyone overlook revelations of wrong doing in banks?  Paltry coverage thus far is due mainly to released docs being mostly boring.

Answer: Same as above, if not more so.  Financial instruments have become so complex that the average man on the street wouldn’t know what to make of most financial transactions. That’s not a criticism of the public, it’s just the reality of the banking world.

“Criticizing self-proclaimed whistle blower for NOT whistle blowing and instead recklessly
releasing simply because they’re classified”

If recklessness was a misdemeanor worthy of precluding journalists from reporting, then half the reporters at the New Yourk Times would be out of work and Fox wouldn’t have a new channel.

“Except everything on his website.”

No, everything that has been reported is on his website.  You can;t find all 250,000 cables on the website.

“Beside the point.  Docs should be released based on disclosure of illegal
behavior, not simply on quantity of classified sources.”

Not at all.  Illegality itself does not determine if something is newsworthy, especially when governments claim that their activities are legal on the basis that the fact they are doing it makes it legal. It’s not illegal to lie and mislead, but it is certainly newsworthy.

“Can you give examples of prosecutions proving illegal behavior so far?”

Not an easy one to answer when the US government reserves the right to proclaim all of it’s activities as legal.

Wikileaks have releaved cases of torture and murder in Iraq, where the US have handed over suspects to the Iraqis knowing that they would be tortured and/or murdered.

Stealing credit card and biometric information would land the average Joe in prison, but not a Secreatary of State.

“The left desperately wants to convert empire to a bad word.”

That’s because the Western world realized a century ago that empire and colinialism was a bad idea.

“I support any paper that reveals illegal behavior.  But where’s the beef here?”

The beef is that you are hlding Wikileaks to a standard that you are not demanding of the mainstream media.

Report this

By bob, February 2, 2011 at 4:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like Assange handled Kroft’s provocative questioning pretty well. It’s been a long time since I saw 60 minutes. The interview reminded me why I stopped watching it. Our media too often fails to exhibit independent thought. Why go to the media, when you can go directly to the source for the same thing? The demise of the fourth estate is almost complete. God save the Constitution.

Report this

By glider, February 2, 2011 at 3:30 am Link to this comment

Marshall, please take your meds now, it is truly getting to be embarrassing.

Report this

By glider, February 2, 2011 at 3:26 am Link to this comment

And what is so wrong about the “force of nature” comment?  Granted it is not the most accurate analogy, but it suggests that Wikileaks is up against a powerful force which is in no way related to our governments fraudulent presentation of itself as being a “democracy”.  It is more consistent with its “corporatocracy” true identity.

Report this

By Marshall, February 2, 2011 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

By Shingo, February 1 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

“Dumping bankign documents now might lead to improtant revelations being
overlooked.”

a) Don’t recall Assange making this argument which would insult the public
anyway since everyone has access to what he chooses, not just press.  b) Why
would anyone
overlook revelations of wrong doing in banks?  Paltry coverage thus far is due
mainly to released docs being mostly boring.

“You’re criticizing a whistle blower for whistle blowing?”

No.  Criticizing self-proclaimed whistle blower for NOT whistle blowing and
instead recklessly
releasing simply because they’re classified.

“Incidentally, he hasn’t dumped anything.”

Except everything on his website.

“The documents he releases are based on the material he is provided.  Clearly
his sources are predominantly from the US.”

Beside the point.  Docs should be released based on disclosure of illegal
behavior, not simply on quantity of classified sources.

“The cables have released an enormous amount of illegal and immoral behavior”

Can you give examples of prosecutions proving illegal behavior so far?  I
support release of such docs but so far, only his judgement of bad behavior or
that which doesn’t jibe with his moral compass.

“A lover of empire such as yourself would justify many of the nefarious activities
the US gets up to.”

The left desperately wants to convert empire to a bad word.

“The same coudl be said of the New Your Times, but I don’t hear you
complaining.”

I support any paper that reveals illegal behavior.  But where’s the beef here?

“I know a great dealis beyong you Marhall, but thus far, there appears to be
very little sicnerity buy the efforts of our diplmatic circles.”

Your ad hominem and spelling aside, I disagree.

“It’s amusing listening to you condemn his righteous moral authority with your
own.”

Condemning his tactics and defense thereof.

Report this

By Marshall, February 2, 2011 at 3:20 am Link to this comment

By Shingo, February 1 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

“Dumping bankign documents now might lead to improtant revelations being
overlooked.”

a) Don’t recall Assange making this argument which would insult the public
anyway since everyone has access to what he chooses, not just press.  b) Why would anyone
overlook revelations of wrong doing in banks?  Paltry coverage thus far is due mainly to released docs being mostly boring.

“You’re criticizing a whistle blower for whistle blowing?”

No.  Criticizing self-proclaimed whistle blower for NOT whistle blowing and instead recklessly
releasing simply because they’re classified.

“Incidentally, he hasn’t dumped anything.”

Except everything on his website.

“The documents he releases are based on the material he is provided.  Clearly
his sources are predominantly from the US.”

Beside the point.  Docs should be released based on disclosure of illegal
behavior, not simply on quantity of classified sources.

“The cables have released an enormous amount of illegal and immoral behavior”

Can you give examples of prosecutions proving illegal behavior so far?  I
support release of such docs but so far, only his judgement of bad behavior or
that which doesn’t jibe with his moral compass.

“A lover of empire such as yourself would justify many of the nefarious activities
the US gets up to.”

The left desperately wants to convert empire to a bad word.

“The same coudl be said of the New Your Times, but I don’t hear you
complaining.”

I support any paper that reveals illegal behavior.  But where’s the beef here?

“I know a great dealis beyong you Marhall, but thus far, there appears to be
very little sicnerity buy the efforts of our diplmatic circles.”

Your ad hominem and spelling aside, I disagree.

“It’s amusing listening to you condemn his righteous moral authority with your
own.”

Condemning his tactics and defense thereof.

Report this

By glider, February 2, 2011 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

Yes, Bill Moyer would of given a better interview no doubt.  But he would have been largely preaching to the choir and reaching 1/10th the ‘60 Minutes’ audience.  Croft was near perfect in echoing the MSM talking points against Wikileaks.  But given him some credit for allowing Assange to speak his piece and essentially expose this propaganda as the fraud it is!  This transparency before the American couch potato at large was precisely why this interview was so good.

Report this

By SteveL, February 2, 2011 at 12:32 am Link to this comment

Steve Kroft is typical of the network news type that got me to stop watching news of their kind long ago.

Report this

By samosamo, February 2, 2011 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

****************

 

Definitely, kroft plays the part of admonisher with his foolish
‘forces of nature’ crack and with his non-recognition that the
‘bank of america’ was, is and still is a part of the problem with
the economy along with several other banks. About the only
good thing about the 60 minute interview, including the
supposed anti-assange’ comments at cbs 60 minutes website, is
that this did play to the msm media’s dumbstream garden of
which kroft strictly upheld their uselessness over all except in
cases like this.

Certainly Assange was a better part of the interview and yes, it
appears some stuff was cut. Would really liked to have seen Bill
Moyer do the interview.

Report this

By RichardWad, February 1, 2011 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Kroft did a completely respectable job considering his position. He has to represent the 60 Minutes viewing audience. Not once did I see him refute or put down Assange’s answers but merely ask the questions with the skeptical tone his viewing audience would expect and allowed the answers to come.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

...biased and baseless rantings…not being a practitioner…himself.
(?!?) citations please:  1) rantings   2) gender

back to substance - to be clear, the citation below is not a recommendation,
but appears to contribute to the discussion - assuming this is one -  hopefully
one in which we can agree, with civility if you please, to disagree

http://tinyurl.com/4tgo8jc

Assange’s collaborators get their knives out

The editors of ‘The New York Times’ and ‘The Guardian’ deliver their verdicts on
life with the founder of WikiLeaks

By Emily Dugan and Pavan Amara
Sunday, 30 January 2011

[...]

Those working with WikiLeaks also suspected their email accounts had been
hacked into following altercations with the website, according to Mr Keller. “At
a point when relations between the news organisations and WikiLeaks were
rocky, at least three people associated with this project had inexplicable activity
in their email that suggested someone was hacking into their accounts.”

[...]

In what appears to be a co-ordinated release, all three of the publications that
worked closely with WikiLeaks are putting out books tomorrow giving their
versions of events. Along with the German magazine Der Spiegel and The
Guardian in the UK, The New York Times gained early access to material held by
WikiLeaks.

Judging from extracts published so far, the most critical book comes from
writers at The New York Times, which fell out with Mr Assange in October after
the publication of the Iraq War Diaries. Mr Assange claimed the paper didn’t
publish the material in its entirety and made too many concessions to the White
House before going to print. His fury was not helped by a story the paper
carried the day after the leaks, which criticised him and quoted many of his
detractors. From that point on, Mr Assange wanted The New York Times kept
out of the loop. When The Guardian later shared material with it, he threatened
legal action.

[...]

Report this

By diamond, February 1, 2011 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Not a fearless seeker after truth, of course, FNT. Julian Assange and Wikileaks are fearless seekers after truth and you are just a fraud, pretending you look at both sides when your desire to discredit Wikileaks is completely obvious. I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but having seen your biased and baseless rantings I would say only a tiny minority could take anything you say seriously.

The interview was priceless. It was the old toady media versus the new media and Kroft looked lost and dazed when Assange just answered anything he had to say with logic and reason. Logic and reason? What a dirty trick. Is it any wonder fearnotruth just can’t grasp it, not being a practitioner of those arts himself.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, February 1, 2011 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

RE: Anyone who watches this interview will know that Wikileaks and Assange
are exactly what they claim to be - and you are not.
(?!?) not what, please cite the claim

the interview is superficial - in general, Wikileaks
seems to promise too much - consider this:

http://cryptome.org/0002/wl-diary-mirror.htm

7 August 2010

Is Wikileaks Bluffing NSA to Spill Its AES Backdoor Secrets

At the center of the drama was the posting last week of a massive 1.4 gigabyte mystery file named “Insurance” on the WikiLeaks website. The “Insurance” file is encrypted, nearly impossible to open until WikiLeaks provides the passwords. But experts suggest that if anyone can crack it — it would be the National Security Agency. It depends on how much time and effort they want to put into it, said James Bamford, who has written two books on the NSA.

The NSA has the largest collection of supercomputers in the world. And officials have known for some time that WikiLeaks has classified files in its possession. The agency, he speculated, has probably been looking for a vulnerability or gap in the code, or a backdoor into the commercial encryption program protecting the file.

[...]

Bet that NSA has cracked the insurance file and is keeping quiet. NSA may have replaced the file with its own when it first appeared—Wikileaks long on instant crypto radar—  the hash forged, covertly marked for tracking. Bluff becomes bait for entrapment, SOP.

Could Wikileaks have intended to entrap NSA and allies with a crackable file, covertly marked for tracking? Some of Wikileaks infosec-comsec advisors do top-classified work for the US and other governments. A very handsome sum would be quietly paid for that service. Cyberwarfare secrets are yet to be spilled, never to be revealed in courts. Fierce dirty combat could do that, unless the combatants reach a secret deal to share the benefits of dual use technology while pretending to be at odds, SOP.

6 August 2010. If there is a takedown of Wikileaks, the insurance.aes256 file will be available through Cryptome along with the entire files of the Wikileaks website which have been archived. Consider doing the same by archiving the site. Inquiries to cryptome[at]earthlink.net.

Report this

By GoyToy, February 1, 2011 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

Kroft desperately needs a well-paying PR position in the U.S. administration.

Report this

By Carol Davidek-Waller, February 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

‘Peripetic internet muckracker’? CBS, your state sponsored propaganda petticoats are showing. The interviewer definitely needs to cut down on his alcohol consumption.
The First Amendment does not protect individuals from being prosecuted for incitement to violence or change the fact that threatening someone with violence is a crime. It does provide legal protection to journalists who actually do their jobs. It should protect them from the kind of persecution embodied in this interview.
‘Some of the men who were assassinated in Iraq by US soldiers were armed? Is this is a CBS scoop then they need to provide evidence. The soldiers even murdered an unarmed man who stopped to help.
This interview is embarrassing. It would make Bill O’Reilly blush. The interviewer is just parroting White House spin and adding stuff after the fact to try and make himself and elite he represents look better.
Eric Holder condemned Assange? Holder is the guy that defended Chiquita Banana death squads in SA. He has yet to prosecute one war criminal or one member of the cabal that brought the economy down. His opinion is important because? 
You don’t win an award for journalism unless you are a journalist and Assange has.
I can’t watch anymore of this.

Report this

By firefly, February 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

“ Julian Assange believes governments use secrecy to
suppress the truth and that mainstream media plays
along….

He believes that the only people that can adequately
police the system are those on the inside who are in
a position to notice the abuse and blow the
whistle…..” 

While most reporters pride themselves on gathering
information and interpreting it for a larger
audience, Wikileaks takes raw data, makes it widely
available and allows others to interpret it for
themselves…………….

“It’s not about saving the whales. It’s about giving
people the facts and information to decide whether
or not to save the whales. Information and facts are
the raw ingredients to make a just and civil society.
Without that you are just sailing in the dark……”

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, February 1, 2011 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

marshall

‘is beyond me.’

seems to be a lot that is beyond you. lol

Report this

By firefly, February 1, 2011 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

“What we want is transparent government, not
transparent people” Julian Assange

Report this

By Shingo, February 1, 2011 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Marshall,

Yuo sound like you’re jealous of the guy.

a) Assange has expressed frustration that many of the documents he’s released went unreported, and even though he’s only released a tiny fraction of the department cables, the trickle has beenmore than adequate to keep news sources busy.  Dumping bankign documents now might lead to improtant revelations being overlooked.

b) “His cause might be believed if the information he published were entirely “whistle blowing” in nature.”

You’re criticizing a whistle blower for whistle blowing?  Geat logic.  Keep it up.

Incidentally, he hasn’t dumped anything.  He’s released it to news outlets and allowed them to vet it and release it at their own discretion.

c) The documents he releases are based on the material he is provided.  Clearly his sources are predominantly from the US.  Sulk about it if you want, but the US tends to hanve it’s fingers in the most pies.

d) The cables have released an enormous amount of illegal and immoral behavior, thoug immorality is in the eye of the beholder.  A lover of empire such as yourself would justify many of the nefarious activities the US gets up to.

e) If he’s attempting to manipulate policy through selective disclosure, all the more power to him.  The same coudl be said of the New Your Times, but I don’t hear you complaining.

f) I know a great dealis beyong you Marhall, but thus far, there appears to be very little sicnerity buy the efforts of our diplmatic circles.

g) It’s amusing listening to you condemn his righteous moral authority with your own.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 1, 2011 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

Other than the cross-fires in their fight against
each other for dominance, I fail to see a vast
difference in the direction of the alleged right vs
the alleged left. The verbage reminds me of Obama oratory.

The direction of USGov has moved in one direction for
more than a few years.  An avant garde acceleration
was made by the “executive privilege” or
“presidential directives” abuse that gutted the U.S.
Constitution. The “New World Order” trumpet was blown
by GHWBushSr about thirty years ago.  His offspring
have carried it out with assistance of the CIA, which
has infiltrated US and state governments.  Colonel
John Stockwell reveals world-wide CIA activity in his videos.

I find it saddening, that a weekly publication by
Wiki-Leaks does not (yet) hit the streets of the
world.

Report this

By ardee, February 1, 2011 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

I trust noone is fooled by this typical right wing rant of Marshall’s.

Doublespeak s where you find it, I guess. Like when our resident Pain ( opposite of Paine)  first castigates Assange for “dumping documents” then wonders why he has not yet “dumped” the banking papers in his possession.

Marshall’s assumption of the motives of Wikileaks is the weakest part of his silly rant actually, as it is so very blatantly biased and holds no water at all. Just the fact that exposure is possible might make some in government to hesitate, and the trends uncovered by said disclosures are certainly educational in nature. This alone makes right wingers crazy as an uneducated public is one of their most cherished goals.

Report this

By Marshall, February 1, 2011 at 4:40 am Link to this comment

Assange is a master of double-speak.  An example is his denial that he
possesses a “poison pill” to be released in the event of his downfall, but goes
on to describe exactly that in artful prose.  If the banking documents he has are
of value, then why does he not release them now?  His cause might be believed
if the information he published were entirely “whistle blowing” in nature.  But
instead, he’s dumped vast amounts of material simply BECAUSE it was
classified, not because it “disclosed abuse” as he incorrectly claims.  He claims
not to be “going after” the U.S. in particular, yet the majority of his releases
uncover no illegal or immoral behavior.  And so he opens himself to legitimate
criticism that he’s attempting to manipulate policy through selective disclosure
(which he denies), or simply reveling in the opportunity to strike at anyone
more powerful than himself.  How these classified dumps prevent abuse, as
opposed to undermining sincere efforts to perform delicate negotiations for
example, is beyond me.  But he’s adept at deflecting those kinds of questions
by quickly slipping behind the cover of his own righteous moral authority.

Report this

By SteveL, February 1, 2011 at 1:57 am Link to this comment

How much damage did CBS do to the U.S. when they decided not to inform the public what a crock the war in Iraq was going to be?

Report this

By prgill, February 1, 2011 at 1:55 am Link to this comment

Good exchange and commentary on 60 Minutes and audience bias.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, January 31, 2011 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Assange did a good job of directing the resolution to the interview of him NOT being someone bent on wreaking havoc, but being a real journalist / reporter / scribe.

Croft posing and contextualizing the interview with carefully chosen words and prism paradigm delivery as the concerned, conservative ‘silent majority,’ showing his lackey dole-loving self, especially when mentioning that Assange doesn’t ‘play the game.’

Of course he doesn’t, it doesn’t serve the conscience to be part of this elite communist empire, yet the masses aren’t conscious of the state of their personal sovereignty, let alone the state of their / the union.

Report this

By kingfisher, January 31, 2011 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Give it up fearnotruth. No one believes anything you’re saying. You are so obviously being paid to make these ludicrous statements. Anyone who watches this interview will know that Wikileaks and Assange are exactly what they claim to be - and you are not.

Report this

By glider, January 31, 2011 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment

Great interview IMO.  Assange was allowed to intelligently and logically answer the propaganda campaign against him.  That this was done on a such a highly attended program as 60 Minutes is fantastic.  Croft was fine as it was critical for Assange to address the misconceptions about him that have been programmed into Americans by the MSM.  Bravo, to 60 Minutes and Wikileaks!

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, January 31, 2011 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

wanting so desperately to believe, that finally there is salvation from the
treacherously compromised MSM, is fully understandable, but…

who’s screwing with whom? saying it again, knowing a knee-jerk smack down
is loaded and ready to spring…

just looks a little too good to be true, a little like we’re all being played

one question: knowing full well he’d be demonized, yet again, why would A
agree to this interview if it weren’t as John Young suggests at the end of this
interview?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRUiB_8tTc

Report this

By berniem, January 31, 2011 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Croft: The people “screwing with the forces of nature” are creatures like the Koch Bros. and their money, reactionary congressinal republicans, the “C” st. “Family” led by the Coe clan, and pieces of offal like Blankenship, LaPierre, Scalia, Beck, the christian right, and all of those CEOs and “Banksters” that have led this nation down the path to economic and moral decay! FREE BRADLEY MANNING!!!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, January 31, 2011 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

The real communism is what Assange hopes to expose.  That’s why the banksters and the Corporate Congress is pooping in their shorts… in their greedy, selfish shorts.

Report this

By par4, January 31, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Steve Kroft needs a trip to Gitmo. He is such a corporate shill it’s enough to make one puke.

Report this

By cmarcusparr, January 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

Archilochus, the ancient Greek poet, wrote: ????’ ???’ ??????, ???’ ?????? ?? ???? (“The fox knows many little things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing”). What does this mean? Rather than try to plumb the mind of someone who lived over 2500 years ago, we should look to Isaiah Berlin.

Berlin expanded upon Archilochus’ idea by dividing writers and thinkers throughout history into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples include Plato, Lucretius, Dante, Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen and Proust) and foxes who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples include Herodotus, Aristotle, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Moliere, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce, and Anderson). Now the point is this: neither category holds a monopoly on authenticity. Both are valid and complementary approaches to understanding reality.

What one should understand, however, is the importance to members of both categories, foxes and hedgehogs, of living an authentic life. To live a good life depends far less on the pursuit of happiness (or pleasure) than upon being true to oneself, to living an authentic life. The philosophers, thinkers and writers listed by Berlin, and anticipated by Archilochus, were acutely aware of the importance of bringing authenticity to an individual’s experience.

Without knowing who we are, the counterfeit life is unworthy of our ancestry, unworthy to the sanctity and miracle of life itself. Should we choose to live blindly and ignore the truth about the nature of the world, we put ourselves on a path that leads to shame, dishonesty, fear, and resentment.

Julian Assange is an authentic individual. He has lived his life, has shaped his life, based upon the lesson of authenticity, morality and ethics. He is probably a hedgehog in this analogy, which is beside the point. Assange is courageous, a hero. If more individuals were like Julian Assange, our country, our world, would be a far better place in which to live.

Report this

By Homes, January 31, 2011 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think Assange’s responses were heavily edited for
brevity’s sake.  I suspect that he was a little
disappointed that his full responses and defense of his
positions may not have come through.

Report this

By Jim Michie, January 31, 2011 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My email to 60 Minutes contributor Steve Kroft:

Steve Kroft:
I watched your interview of Julian Assange last evening with deep disappointment over your treatment of the wikileaks release of the video of the gunship attack on a group of individuals on a street in Iraq.  You stated that “some carried weapons,” when you know all too well that there was and continues to be controversy over this claim made by the Defense Department.  You obviously chose to go with the “claim” of the Defense Department in its attempt to justify this horrifying example of what this war has wrought, but you failed to attribute this “claim” to the Defense Department.  Moreover, you failed to mention the most egregious clip of that video—the gunship attack on a van carrying two children and its driver who was murdered while trying to help a Reuters reporter wounded in that same disgraceful attack.  “Quick-and-dirty” is how most journalists would characterize your “performance” in this piece.  My take: quick-and-shameful! Shame on you, Steve, shame, shame, shame!  By the way, Steve, you did your best to discredit Assange and wikileaks.  You failed, and I’ll bet the outtakes would strongly serve to validate your failure.
Jim Michie
5407 Glenwood Road
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-656-5278

Report this

By josephe.marshjr, January 31, 2011 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Very illuminating indeed, that Kroft equates the US government with “the forces of nature.” Ahhhhh, *sigh* it’s yet another of fifty gazillion examples of the US media in its prime role as Ministry of Propaganda.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, January 31, 2011 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

I disagree with you all.  I think Kroft was an ideal interviewer.  You have to consider the audience the show was prepared for—the earnest, mainstream, middlebrow audience of 60 Minutes.  They see themselves as someone like Kroft, reasonably intelligent but unimaginative, honest, forthright and of good will, good citizens, and they would ask Assange the same medium-dumb, confused questions, pitching slow and over the plate, and accept the same answers in the same passive way.

Assange seems to have trimmed his ideological sails quite a bit, which is just as well since I am sure neither Kroft nor his audience could easily handle any serious challenges to their beliefs.  It would just be too much work.  Even Madison and Jefferson are way out on the boundaries of what they know, what they have ever heard of.  In a way it’s too bad—I found Assange’s previous quasi-anarchist theories more interesting, even though I disagreed with them—but with the enemies Assange has made I’m sure he has to play a careful game if he wants to go on breathing.  By positioning himself near the Times he makes himself less available for assassination or rendition.

I think the main drama here is that the government and media have become so corrupt, indeed, incestuously corrupt, that Assange seems like some sort of Wunderkind or extraterrestrial, when he’s actually just doing what reporters, editors and publishers are supposed to do.  Were supposed to do, anyway.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, January 31, 2011 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

“screwing with the forces of nature”

What a louse.

Cannot even come up with an original line.

That line is from “Network,” which is a movie EVERYONE and their mother should see concerning class warfare, the PTB, and the value of human life and the value of wealth.

Report this

By AnnaCatherine, January 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Steve Croft was in way over his head. He looked a little foolish at times. Julian Assange can deflect just about any questions. His ability to reason and his line of logic put him in control of any line of questioning. He’s about Free Speech and holding people accountable. Nothing wrong with that.

Report this

By rend, January 31, 2011 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The comment page at 60 Minutes is a pretty depressing read.

Report this

By Jim Yell, January 31, 2011 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Assange has nothing to apologize for, nor does he need to explain his motives. Our government on the other hand needs to explain and apologize for a lot of things. Our elected officials dismiss the voters and listen only to Corporate America and the Banks. They use Secrets as a means to hide their complete criminality. Our military is in the hands of gangsters and so is our government.

Report this
BarbieQue's avatar

By BarbieQue, January 31, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Suckups like Kroft and other “journalists” hate Assange because he reminds them of what they could have been, and shows them to be the tools that they are.

Perhaps it would have been helpful if Mr. Assange had explained to Kroft just exactly who Jefferson and Madison were.

Report this

By peter1a, January 31, 2011 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Not only was Kroft inept he insisted on playing the prosecutor role.

His idea obviously to distance the USA from Assange by making Assange the “guilty man”.  Didn’t work and won’t work.

Report this

By bpawk, January 31, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

The US didn’t seem to mind when wikileaks exposed african or other countries’ corruption years ago and in fact praised wikileaks for exposing it. However, when the leaks are focused on the US it is a different story. He doesn’t get praise but death threats. Americans are the biggest hypocrits.

Report this

By ardee, January 31, 2011 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

I looked forward to this interview as a chance to clarify Assange’s position and purpose. He did not disappoint me at all.

Despite the interviewer’s ineptitude ( where is a Walter Cronkite when he is needed) I found Assange to be a very principled man indeed, one who works tirelessly for the interests of all the world.

The propaganda war against Wikileaks and Assange will continue of course, and some will continue to criticize him, having drunk the kool aid. But his message will get through to most I believe, and his exposures of the facts, the lies, and the machinations of our government and business interests will continue to awaken more and more of us.

Report this

By Zoharz, January 31, 2011 at 4:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Loved the stuff on Hillary!

Report this

By Nikk, January 31, 2011 at 4:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Assange is quite obviously a refined intellectual. The interviewer, on the other hand, is a bit too dull and obtuse to be interviewing someone of his caliber.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, January 31, 2011 at 3:33 am Link to this comment

Julian Assange (an Australian) should be in charge of teaching civics classes to the entire U.S.. He has a deeper understanding of our right to free speech than our schools, Media and Elected Officials.

Oh, but let’s not forget that Americans are getting their “constitutional lessons” from Sarah Palin these days.

I don’t have too many “heroes” but I must say that Assange certainly gets close. Would that there were more of him.

Report this

By FeedTheRich, January 31, 2011 at 1:45 am Link to this comment

Forces of nature? Think he means the status quo, which has allowed the immoral and illegal exposed by Wikileaks to go unreported for years. Count me as one who doesn’t mind seeing this particular status quo disrupted.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook