Answering the Charge, Among Others, that Al Jazeera's Julian Assange Interview Should Be Termed "Excusive"


I've had the following put to me:

This is how I interpret it: "In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel." You are saying that he gave the documents to the newspapers but they chose not to publish them. Then, why the announcement that they will be released in six months?

What was the benefit to Assange to distribute to only a few of the media?

What was the benefit to the world to distribute to only a few of the media? especially if one is courageous?

This is an interesting way to spend Christmas, but I'm not pagan or popish. Jesus was not born on Christmas Day and it was a really, really stupid day for the Pope to choose to observe his birth (Merry Christmas anyway though), so here goes:

First, based upon your ardent position so far that you have seen no reason not to suspect Assange of covering for Israel, the term "excusive" there appears designed to suggest that Julian Assange has given inappropriate, misleading, and delaying-tactic reasons for why all the cables dealing with Israel and Mossad have not been released.

Moving on: You said of me, "You are saying that he gave the documents to the newspapers but they chose not to publish them." Because Le Monde had said before Julian's recent interview on it that there are many cables dealing with Israel that will be released, it can be inferred from that, among other things, the papers do have them. Le Monde, it appears, is less afraid than the NYT (consider the Zionist politics of New York City). It is not Julian who lacks courage.

Now the cables (all 250 thousand) may have leaked to another paper that may not be willing to work collaboratively at all (See: "Aftenposten Claims It Has 250,000 Wikileaks' Documents"). We'll see. Maybe it will rush out the Israel-related cables, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon how well it's done. One must always be mindful of how the likes of Rupert Murdoch's FOX will spin things {an FOX, by the way, that Julian has singled out for special opprobrium, contrary to your assertion (elsewhere) that he praised the Murdochs}: Blood on WikiLeaks hands; traitor to his race/class/capitalism or whatever.

I am inferring from the whole body of work of Assange {past releases, writings, interviews, etc., of which I've seen plenty (but not all, of course)} that he had discussions with the papers as to what they would be willing to do and not do. Exactly how detailed those discussions might have become is ripe for speculation, but I would assume they would vary by organization and topic area as reflected in the statements Julian made concerning which paper/country had which concerns.

When it comes to releasing the Chinese documents that are not Cablegate cables but the results of deep-politics real hacking, Julian and WikiLeaks is faced with language considerations. The Cablegate cables were in English. The papers he chose in Germany and Spain were multilingual enough for WikiLeaks' purposes. Chinese is a different matter. There are also Korean documents (also not Cablegate). There are documents from all over the world in many languages (also not Cablegate). The coming banking release (likely Bank of America) is not Cablegate. Cablegate is one leak. WikiLeaks has received many, many leaks.

WikiLeaks was literally getting hundreds of thousands (that's right) emails per day as long ago as 2007. Try managing that with just a small handful of people. Now, there will be more people, more resources, and more money: First things first! Then, down with the evil Empire. That's how it works. Although, Julian is not an anarchist. I don't know what brand of capitalism he supports. He has said he is a capitalist. If that means he's for usury (interest), then he's economically ignorant and/or misled. Again, we'll see.

Do you think that running WikiLeaks as it ramps up and fends off attacks and snoops, spooks, and moles is as rolling off a log?

I am inferring (as a distinct possibility) that the NYT didn't want to run with the Israel cables right out of the starting blocks. They may want others to go first to blunt attacks on the NYT if and when the NYT does cover Israel.

US Senator Joe Lieberman isn't kidding around. He really is an Israel-Firster. He would rather the US be a cinder than Israel. He will do whatever he can, and those like him in the AIPAC and other Zionist orgs will do whatever they can (they have deep, deep pockets because many banksters and Federal Reserve people are Zionists first), to destroy newspapers and others that work to end Apartheid Israel.

Julian chose to go the New York Times, SPIEGAL, Guardian, et al., route because he had run into problems just releasing documents before. No journalists picked up on them. In addition, he is using the NYT and the others. SPIEGAL has a huge fact-checking unit, perhaps the largest in the world. WikiLeaks doesn't have that capability (yet). So, going somewhat with DER SPIEGAL is as free fact-checking/vetting outsourcing to a degree. That's not at all a stupid thing to have decided to do.

Based upon what I can only view as a disagreement on methodology, timing, and priorities, you have been saying Assange has consciously and deliberately been protecting Zionism as his choice rather than that it is as he is saying: The newspapers are the ones who didn't put their teams on the issue; and WikiLeaks hasn't had the heft (yet) to get the world to pay attention all the while doing a spectacular job of protecting low-hanging fruit in the form of stupid, gullible informant/collaborators and the like working with the Empire.

Look at how the Pentagon first whined that WikiLeaks would have blood on its hands if.... The Pentagon, of course, should never, never use such a ploy. The one whose hands can't even be seen for the ocean of blood and death it has caused, should never point to a potential spot of blood on someone else. Bob Gates had to admit the fact that there is zero proof that WikiLeaks leaks have resulted in any such blood spilling. It was such a weak argument, and Gates didn't want to have to defend it. Nevertheless, once it's thrown out there, the bozos will echo that WikiLeaks could cause a hair on the head of the stupid US military service member (volunteer to fight and die for the Plutocracy) to be harmed.

I would not have handled things as Julian has, but I realize that I didn't go through releasing documents on WikiLeaks only to see no newspapers pick them up and run with them. Had I been through it and the conversations with the papers hearing their objections and concerns, etc., perhaps I would have arrived at very nearly the same approach Julian has taken.

You appear to want near instant gratification concerning the Zionist Regime or are very frustrated that it is not the highest priority with WikiLeaks. Your focus is Palestine. Julian is just as interested in, perhaps more, Russia and China and Korea. He has explained though why the shift to the US with the Cablegate cables. The American people (dissidents) happen to move on things and are better able to because of the First Amendment. Now, maybe he's doing a little buttering up there (I think more so rallying), but he still has a point. Jump on the bandwagon.

What I get from many of your objections is a bit of the "You want your cake and to eat it too." Maybe a better way of saying it is that with you, Julian Assange is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Look, if we could go back to the world before WikiLeaks and live up to now without it, we'd all be much worse off. WikiLeaks isn't perfect, but it has been much, much better then nothing.

I happen to focus a great deal on Palestine too but not to the extent that you do.

For Julian though, consider that the US is loaded with "conservative, Republican Christian-Zionists." I'm told that Australia (Julian's home country) has only one member of Parliament who is of Jewish extraction and he's brand new to it. Now that wouldn't be an issue except that member is reportedly a rabid Zionist and a huge anti-9/11-Truther.

Have you noticed how Zionism and anti-9/11 Truth often go together? They do that so much that many people are using 9/11 Truth as a litmus test to detect closet Zionism. I don't agree with that approach. I much prefer to ask the person directly, which is what I did concerning Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Australia is English speaking and just below Indonesia, with its East Timor issue — a huge shipping lane.

Australia has been feeling China (and Japan and India) and the US from a non-American mentality. So to a great extent when Julian thinks globally, he truly does. So too do I. So too ought you.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.