In Defense of WikiLeaks

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Read a recap of this interview on It's A Free Country.

Glenn columnist, former constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York and the author of Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, discusses why critics of WikiLeaks are wrong.


Glenn Greenwald

Comments [82]

Shadeed Ahmad from New York, New York

The "La La Land" sanctuaries in our heads are no longer safe quarters, thanks to the WiKiLeaks bombshells.

Dec. 09 2010 02:10 AM
Sugna from Upper West Side

mgduke claims that I have been unable "to refute any single thing that Greenwald actually said". Well, let's go to the audiotape (or transcript).

Early on Brian Lehrer asks Greenwald to actually 'name names' of officials in the US Government who are pressuring companies to boycott Wikileaks. He asks Greenwald: "Can you name names or Departments (or anything else) that are pressuring Amazon and other companies to cut off service to Julian Assange"?

Greenwald answers (emphasis mine): "Yes I can. PAYPAL. The CEO of Paypal this morning, when asked why it was that they froze his (i.e. Assange's) account and seized those funds, replied that he was TOLD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT that what Wikileaks has been doing is illegal and that therefore the illegal activity is violative (sic) of Paypal's terms of service and that they shouldn't be allowing Wikileaks to use their service".

This is all transparently false. To get it right all Greenwald would have had to have done was to actually read the news stories about this - instead of the headlines. First, it was not the CEO of Paypal but Osama Bedier, a Vice President, who made the statement about Wikileaks. Second, after leaving the impression that Paypal 'had complied with a 'governmental request' to deny service to Wikileaks, Bedier immediately corrected his statement by saying that in fact the State Department had never actually spoken "directly to Wikileaks". It transpired that Paypal had merely seen a public letter sent by the State Department to Wikileaks.

It took about 5 seconds to fact check Greenwald as he was being interviewed this morning. Why couldn't he get his facts straight? Why would he bother to exaggerate and embellish the simple 20 line wire story? Why would he falsely claim that the US government specifically told the CEO of Paypal that 'they shouldn't be allowing Wikileaks to use their service"? Your guess is as good as mine - but I certainly wouldn't trust much of what he has to say or write from now on.

Dec. 09 2010 01:03 AM
tom johnston

The American gov. is glad to release secret documents like the female cia operative whose husband told the truth about lack of wmd's in Iraq. Amazing how the American gov. can manage their confidential info. that way. But boy do they have mud on their face now- I enjoy looking at secret U.S. docs.

Imagine of we had wikileaks to let us know what liars the Bush admin. was.

Dec. 08 2010 10:59 PM
will Galison from ny

WNYC has censored emails and comments about the political assassination of Sunny Sheu.

Sunny himself appealed to WNYC to address judicial corruption, after he had received death threats from a NY Judge.

After his murder, WNYC has refused to investigate or even to report on this incredible scandal.

WNYC has also failed to report on the horrific revelations by whistleblowers of the NY Judiciary.

I look forward to whistleblowers from within WNYC exposing the hypocrisy and corruption at this once magnificent and noble station.

Dec. 08 2010 09:21 PM
oscar from ny

i heard this wicked leak..,the US some how destroys a battleship supposedly owned by South Korea with an old torpedo everyone blames North Korea to instigate a war between N.K and S.K that will enable or help spark a war with Iran with the help of Britain and Israel.
China doesn't really care because it knows that N.K doesn't want a confrontation with the south and it knows that the US prompted by Israel and other factions will do anything to invade Iran.
I really think that the US should start thinking about possible future scenarios by ourselves and start cleaning house. If i was president Obama first, i would raid the Federal reserve and wall st with the help of CIA, FBI, NSA,DEA, have the military work on a commercial war strategy with the media "television, radio, etc" in the middle east, {brainwash}. sponsor a UN missionary group from around the world to monitor Iran nuclear ambition and help restore order between the state of Israel and Palestine. I would also have a long talk with everyone inside the government and tell them to start working harder instead of bickering about nothing. I would tell all the 5% of the richest Americans to be brave for about two years and give them a placebo money effect so they wont cry, restore Americans faith in back to this country and eventually start talking and awarding scientist and manufacturers to build a new hope for every city in this country.

Dec. 08 2010 08:49 PM
oscar from ny

i heard this wicked leak..,the US some how destroys a battleship supposedly owned by South Korea with an old torpedo everyone blames North Korea to instigate a war between N.K and S.K that will enable or help spark a war with Iran with the help of Britain and Israel.
China doesn't really care because it knows that N.K doesn't want a confrontation with the south and it knows that the US prompted by Israel and other factions will do anything to invade Iran.
I really think that the US should start thinking about possible future scenarios by ourselves and start cleaning house. If i was president Obama first, i would raid the Federal reserve and wall st with the help of CIA, FBI, NSA,DEA, have the military work on a commercial war strategy with the media "television, radio, etc" in the middle east, {brainwash}. sponsor a UN missionary group from around the world to monitor Iran nuclear ambition and help restore order between the state of Israel and Palestine. I would also have a long talk with everyone inside the government and tell them to start working harder instead of bickering about nothing. I would tell all the 5% of the richest Americans to be brave for about two years and give them a placebo money effect so they wont cry, restore Americans faith in back to this country and eventually start talking and awarding scientist and manufacturers to build a new hope for every city in this country.

Dec. 08 2010 08:47 PM

A cable released Dec 2nd showed that the US was asked to block the release of an article and video about Bacha Bazi ( child prostitution in Afghanistan by the way was BANNED by the Taliban ) which was goin on at a party thrown by Dyncorp

VERY DISTURBING, so ask yourself should stuff like this be exposed or kept in the dark...

Dec. 08 2010 03:29 PM

20 years ago Brian, your were my Glen Greenwald. After 2 wars and the decimation of the economy, everything has changed. Why haven't you?

Dec. 08 2010 03:10 PM
Chrisco from Bayarea

Glenn Greenwald is an amazing voice. I'd hate to be in his sights, 'cos, bam, bam, bam,, he is ruthlessly on target. And nowhere even close to shrill, but quite engaging (except if your the one who's ox is being gored).

Dec. 08 2010 02:54 PM


Your comment deliberately misrepresents what Greenwald said in order to create the false impression that what he said was inaccurate, which you then use as a basis for making several nasty insults. Specifically, you pretend that “the only evidence . . . that Greenwald could provide of direct US Government pressure on Pay Pal--and others” was that the government sent a letter to PayPal, which both the government and PalPal are now denying.
In fact, however, as you must have heard, GG never said that the government had sent a letter to PayPal, and, more importantly, he actually devoted most of his impeachment of government pressure against the companies to the public actions of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who announced his insistence that all companies terminate their relationships with WL.

Given that you listened to the segment, you must know that what you wrote was false. What is your reason for writing such false statements and then using them as the springboard to make insults, such as, “Either Greenwald is lazy and incompetent; or, he’s exaggerating to support his argument. . . . in this really quite specific slander, it appears that he was neither truthful nor accurate”?

Don’t you realize how obvious it is from looking at the facts that if anyone is making untruthful and inaccurate statements, and falsely derogating someone’s reputation, it is you? And, furthermore, that despite the lengths to which you are willing to go, you have not been able to refute any single thing that Greenwald actually said.

Dec. 08 2010 02:33 PM
Craig from Jersey

a)criminal passing of classified documents is a far cry from "free press" b) whatever it takes, it's a dirty world out there c) they already hate us d) not a whistleblower, a criminal.

Dec. 08 2010 02:14 PM
Jay from Chicago, IL

Not sure why a) people don't understand the Constitutional prohibition on laws which would prevent a free press b) people want their government to be just plain dirty c) people don't understand the concept of blowback d) people don't understand the concept of a whistleblower

Dec. 08 2010 02:08 PM
Tom Patton from newark, de

It's ironic that our government believes it can do anything it wants to any country but no other country is allowed to do the same. It's the same as a parent telling their child not to smoke while holding a cigarette. Aren't we in two wars that were started with lies by the republican party and we Americans reward them by voting them back in office. So our government knows it can do anything illegal and get away with it. How do we know the charges against Assange were not the pressure of the US. I am proud to be an American, however, I believe our self-righteousness is going to bring us down eventually!

Dec. 08 2010 01:59 PM
Craig from Jersey

Ah, yes, the "it was all our fault" contingent. It was America's fault that a significant percentage of the Islamic world wants to return to a seventh century civilization under sharia law and the rule of a worldwide caliphate. Must have been something we said on these stolen cables.

Dec. 08 2010 01:36 PM

Very good to hear, finally, some careful thinking about WikiLeaks on WNYC.

Thank goodness for people of conscience like Glenn Greenwald who have the courage and patriotism to stand up for the principles on which this country was founded, and the skill to express themselves so cogently even in an unwelcoming forum where the host keeps trying to bias the framework.

@Carol: What is it specifically that you can’t stand about the way that Greenwald is arguing? To me it sounds like he’s just being carefully logical in his reasoning and supporting his arguments by adducing lots of verifiable facts. What do you see that I don’t?

@Suzanne: Please give link to JA stating vendetta against US. It seems to me that he’s helping the US by exposing corrupt actions by current and recent government that violate the Constitutional principles and rule of law on which we founded our nation. And, why do you put out the deliberate disinformation that GG is targeting only the US, when as you must know, he has targeted corruption in other countries and continents in the past, which, in fact, the leaked cables continue to do?

@Craig Adams: When you advocate prosecutions of press and speech in violation of the 1st Amendment, it becomes clear that the “We” to which you belong wants to undermine the American way of life and of the Constitution and rule of law on which it stands.

@Tom: These releases are helping to stop human rights abuses by taking the essential first step of informing the American people about them. Most of us are not so cowardly and criminal that we would want our government to engage in such unlawful actions in a vain pretense that it is defending our security. As John Adams said, “Those who trade liberty for security will have neither”.

@Mark Naroshkhyn: Aren’t you failing to distinguish between secrets kept to conceal moral actions to achieve a moral goal (such as the deployment of troops in a just war--which, by the way, Assange has said he supports) and secrets kept to conceal corrupt actions, which can never achieve a moral goal? Isn’t it clear that the only way for the US to successfully combat terrorism is to start with the essential first step of renouncing all terrorist acts, including those committed by other countries that we support.

Dec. 08 2010 01:23 PM
Sugna from Upper West Side

It turns out that the only evidence (after some pressing from Brian Lehrer) that Greenwald could provide of direct US Government pressure on PayPal - and others - was incorrect. PayPal never received a letter from the US Government - and the US Government denies ever sending one. Here is US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip Crowley: "The US government did not write to PayPal requesting any action regarding WikiLeaks. Not true."

If Greenwald had done any research at all - beyond reading the headlines of various puff pieces on the internet and in the mainstream media - he'd have found out that PayPal are now denying receiving any letter. Here is Osama Bedier (PayPal VP) in Huffington Post:

"Bedier later clarified that the State Department did not address PayPal directly, but wrote a letter to WikiLeaks explaining that the organization's actions were illegal."

Either Greenwald is lazy and incompetent; or, he's exaggerating to support his argument. I suspect the latter. Ironic, since he's the one who claims he's on the side of 'truth' and the free exchange of 'accurate' information. Unfortunately, in this really quite specific slander, it appears he was neither truthful nor accurate.

Dec. 08 2010 12:55 PM
Paul from NYC

No, Craig, it's time that Americans like you started asking themselves what we did to deserve having enemies in the first place. "My country right or wrong" as a philosophy is finished, Vietnam took care of that.

Dec. 08 2010 12:12 PM
Sonne Hernandez from Bushwick

Why hasn't Obama said a single thing about this? And i just realized all this pressure from Goverenment , in my opinion illegal, is happening on Mr Transperency's watch. Could we address this tomorrow?

Dec. 08 2010 12:08 PM
Craig from Jersey

Hard as it may be for some to believe, especially Glenn Greenwald, we do, in fact, have enemies that are out to cause great harm to our country, and anything - any single sentence or revelation - that gives them even the slightest advantage is unacceptable. To assume that you can redact this or that name, and thus have some absolute confidence that all of these cables just report on the evils of America, with no negative repercussions, is incredibly naive. Of course if you are Manning or Assange, that is of little importance in the context of your egomaniacal delusions of grandeur.

Forget the Mickey Mouse sex charges, the US government should do something more against this criminal than send whining letters from overly cautious lawyers.

Dec. 08 2010 12:03 PM
Charles from Carmel, NY

That extensive non-legal action is being taken against Assange by the US is merely a continuation of Obama's wholesale continuation of the Bush/Cheney Bill of Rights violations. Habeus Corpus is still denied, kidnapping and rendition continue, torture in secret foreign prisons continues with the sole exception of water-boarding. The Imperial Presidency has dug itself in further with not a whimper from the liberal pundits, like Dowd and Rich, who vocally attacked Bush/Cheney for these crimes. A government that is getting away with crimes has every incentive to expand those crimes to new areas. A slippery slope to dictatorship that Obama is sliding us all down, crime by crime.

Dec. 08 2010 12:02 PM

@ hjs11211:
"Why is there so little focus on how these documents got to wikileaks in the first place" is because no one (White House, Congress, Pentagon, et al) could be bothered to close - let alone acknowledge - their collective security holes.

Manning was smart enough to recognize the value of what he read in-transit and just stupid enough to be caught (first rule of crime: don't boast of your accomplishments). He's been punished, and thankfully it wasn't a "trial of the century" with wall-to-wall coverage. But Assange has become the poster-boy of the moment for "radical cyberterrorism" and "freedom of information" (depending on which side of the divide you're on); and the fact that he *enjoys* the attention generates an exponentially-growing feedback loop within the media.

Oh - and those diplomatic cables? They're probably still being sent as e-mail attachments... :-/

Dec. 08 2010 11:48 AM
Dw. Dunphy from Red Bank, NJ

If Julian Assange is guilty of rape, he should be prosecuted. What makes him above Roman Polanski in that?

Beyond that, although that alone is hard to just glance past, I was on-board with WikiLeaks to a degree. There ought to be a level of investigative journalism that is outside the sphere of governmental interference (can you say, "embedded?" I knew that you could). I am against what WikiLeaks has evolved into as of late, and that is a machine that either knowingly or unknowingly seems to support anarchy, destabilization and in turn threatens the lives of those directly involved in situations.

To which I imagine people would be replying that I'm buying into the government secrecy line. Not true. My opinion is based on Assange's own threats of a data-dump fire sale if he was arrested or killed. This is not the shield of a person who believes they're innocent and are doing a public service, but of someone threatening a "nuclear option." It was at that point where I simply couldn't see him as an embattled truth-teller. I saw Die Hard 4 too. It wasn't very good.

Mr. Greenwald is passionate about his support, but perhaps too much so. Often in your conversation, he went from being an intelligent zealot to the guy that bought the $300 special edition fan club t-shirt. At this stage in my life, the thing least likely to sway my viewpoint is the fanatic decrying the fanaticism of equal and opposite fanatics.

Dec. 08 2010 11:47 AM
Julie Askew from New York

Thank god for this segment this morning ... it was one of those sit in the driveway moments. I was beginning to feel that living in the US is no better than living in China. All the reporting on Wikileaks has been so biased that it was a breath of fresh air to hear someone in this country's media speak out. Great job!

Dec. 08 2010 11:44 AM
John Raby from Warren, NJ

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a law court. Unless or until they are proven guilty, they should have full access to credit and to websites that they use. This applies especially to questions of national security. The public deserves to be kept safe both from foreign threats and illegal activities of its own government, which have been all too plentiful in the past decade. What a millenium we live in!

Dec. 08 2010 11:42 AM
Lenore from Upper West Side

Bravo to Glenn Greenwald who I read regularly and to Wikileaks.

Here's another example that Greenwald didn't give--Wikileaks revealed that our government, the Obama administration, pressured the Spanish prosecutors to kill the torture inquiry against John Yoo et al.

Robert Baer was on last week bemoaning the effect that wikileaks would have on secret diplomacy. Secret diplomacy and lies have given us two wars in this decade, many other wars in the previous decade and century, terrorism, oppression, gifts to corporations.....

So what marvels has secret diplomacy given us?

Dec. 08 2010 11:40 AM
Pauline from Queens

Before Wikileaks made all the documents public, they actually contacted the State Dept. to try to get from them an assessment of which documents (or passages in documents) could represent an actual security risk for US personnel; the State Dept. refused even to talk to Wikileaks. The documents that were leaked document illegal activity ordered by the Secretary of State and Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite to criticize Julian Assange for illegal activity. As for the rape charges, obviously, no one except for Julian Assange & the two women really knows what happened (or didn't), but the timing of the arrest warrant does seem like a rather extraordinary coincidence. From what I've heard, a right-wing Swedish politician pressured the Swedish prosecutor to issue the arrest warrant, not because he was in the least bit concerned about the alleged sexual assault, but because he's colluding with US officials to use the alleged rapes as a pretext for arresting Assange in the UK, bringing him to Sweden for trial and then extraditing him to the US for the Wikileaks matter, which of course has nothing to do with the alleged crimes of sexual assault.

Dec. 08 2010 11:39 AM

when will u talk about SIPRNet

Dec. 08 2010 11:38 AM
jawbone from Parsippany

Come to think about it more -- probably we'd be better off if MC didn't do business with Citibank. We'd have been much better off if those crazy naked credit default swaps had had no way to swamp the real economy....

hhhmmm -- barter? Whoohooo!

Dec. 08 2010 11:37 AM
Joseph Barros from New York City

The right wants all kinds of investigative reporting to basically disappear so corporation slavery and oppression can continue in the name of profits and capitalism. Glenn is a very savvy and unfortunate a voice that is evaporating from our so call "Democracy". Thanks for having him and I hope he can go to CNN and other round table cables.

Dec. 08 2010 11:36 AM
Left of Dem from New York

What makes Gleen Greenwald so insightful are two simple things:
1) He refuses to engage in vague generalities;

2) He knows where to find the bodies, metaphorically and, all too often, literally.

Dec. 08 2010 11:33 AM

Your guest is amazingly one-sided with polarized arguments. Assange with pure and benevolent motives and the US government as takeing actions that are simply misleading and corrupt, without benefit to the US public. The truth is never so simple. He would be more credible if he could present a more balanced argument.

Dec. 08 2010 11:33 AM
pete from bk

I love how these rape charges have been discounted by the media including NPR via ATC. Why is our default to explain these charges away as some sort of political trap orchestrated by the US. I love this new era of misogynist the end it's all about the Great's a form of fascism people

Dec. 08 2010 11:32 AM

Manning is not the issue, SIPRNet is

Dec. 08 2010 11:32 AM
Marc Naroshkhyn from Brooklyn

"In war, truth is so precious that she must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies" - Winston Churchill

While governments' secrecy can be maddening, in the end Wikileaks serves only to undermine the US' efforts to combat terrorism -- nothing more, nothing less.

Dec. 08 2010 11:31 AM
Grammarian Paysan Montreal from montreal quebec

The SUBJUNCTIVE mood is needed, Brian Lehrer.

It is not "If he WAS arrested"

it is "If he WERE arrested"

Think Fiddler sur le toit

"If I were a rich man"

Dec. 08 2010 11:30 AM
Tom from Canarsie

How exactly are these releases helping to "stop human rights abuses," as your guest contends? I smell the fumes of pipe dreams coming from my radio.

Dec. 08 2010 11:30 AM

Months ago everyone said "there was no proof" and now that we have proof, the line is "well, nothing new here, just ignore it."

Once again, thanks for having Glenn on. He's a well spoken journalist with integrity.

Dec. 08 2010 11:30 AM
Dorothy from NYC

I am not a fan of stealing documents but I am completely against the actions that MC, Visa, Amazon and Paypal have taken and I have closed all of my accounts. Am I going to be cut off because if my comment now? Is that next? I have to side with Wikileaks on this one.

I am glad that this has all happened. It lets us all know exactly what kind of country we live in and we need that information - anyone who thinks we don't needs to pull their head out of the sand.

Go Glenn - you have tons of support!

Dec. 08 2010 11:29 AM

Hhhmmm--what would happen if MC/Visa/Discover/AmEx stopped doing business with all entities or individuals accused of illegal activities?

What about those Big Pharmaceutical companies which deliberately gave higher prices to the Government for the setting of medical device and drug prices so that they could have an illegally higher spread? They just had to pay fines (no perp walks, of course; criminal charges are for little people, not corporate "persons" and their humans who call the shots for those corporations), but the are guilty of illegal actions.

oh, and...banksters?

Uh oh. There goes the

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
Edward from NJ

@moshe from upper west side,
If you disagree with Amazon and Paypal's actions, by all means, boycott them. Understand that their actions were most likely motivated by fears that people on the other side of the issue would have boycotted.

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM

I am not a troll. There is not one opinion about this. And the jury is still out. What about the war criminals in the Bush administration?

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
Paysan Montreal from QuebecNation

The link for Greenwald's book is to AMAZON!!!! why support them

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
Jack E Savage from East Village NYC

did the NYT publish the WikiLeaks prior to said leaks' publication on WikiLeaks itself?

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
Craig Adams from Jersey

The NY Times should have been prosecuted for Lichtblau and Risen's disclosure of NSA wiretaps. It's great that we are spying on UN diplomats, they deserve it. Why the hell should Glenn Greenwald or Bill Keller be the arbiter of what secrets are okay to release? We should be doing those things.

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
RCT from NYC

Neither woman, nor the police, nor the original prosecutor wanted to file rape charges against Assange -- the decision to file the charge came from someone higher in the food chain. Sounds fishy to me.

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM
John from office

If these leaks were about Israel, Glenn would be sooooo quiet. And sooo angry about the crime and abuse.

Dec. 08 2010 11:28 AM

Andrew, Suzanne, the rest of you trolls -- the U.S. government, including Hillary Clinton, are WAR CRIMINALS -- this is what the cables show --

Dec. 08 2010 11:26 AM
dick from Baldiin

Glenn Greenwald is supporting those who anonymous people who attack others because they don't disclose everything. Greenwald's position is that of those who thought the United States was inperfect in the 20s and 30s and supported Stalin.

Assange is simply an anarchist who doesn't want government to work. Not much different than Osama.

Dec. 08 2010 11:26 AM

if nothing is new here than what is the crime?

Dec. 08 2010 11:26 AM

@ hjs11211: Because Pfc. Manning's court marital ended months ago and because there is no one else "representing" WikiLeaks on a television camera.

Dec. 08 2010 11:25 AM
amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

WikiLeaks is New Media and has no need to follow the path of traditional journalism.

Dec. 08 2010 11:25 AM
Gaetano Catelli from Oxford, Mississippi

It's simply scandalous that governments take steps to oppose anarchy.

Dec. 08 2010 11:24 AM
Christine from Westchester

When is it over the line? When can we call someone an enemy of the state without someone crying "Freedom of the Press." Wikileaks is not the press. And why aren't we after whoever leaked this info? They need to go after enemies of our country. Enough with this patty cake behavior.

Dec. 08 2010 11:24 AM
RCT from NYC

I agree with your guests that the preemptive steps taken to bring down Wiki-leaks are a threat to free speech. No Court has made a determination regarding Wiki-leaks actions. I do not support bringing down Mastercard or Citibank via cyber war, but I don't agree that the actions taken by Citibank are in keeping with due process or our civil liberties.

I think that Assange is naive; that's another issue entirely.

Dec. 08 2010 11:24 AM
john from office

This guest and the supporters are so off base here. They will not be happy till we get attacked and thousand are killed.

Dec. 08 2010 11:24 AM
Sonne Hernandez from Bushwick

I love, love, love love your guest....FINALLY someone saying it like it is.....what is more criminal.......the things that expose OUR goverment as LIARS? or a guy who lets us know about it?

Dec. 08 2010 11:24 AM
Paysan from Quebec Nation

What NY Times does and what NPR does is also reveal secrets.

The fact that the disclosure is of illegally obtained information does NOT make the publisher liable. US Supreme Court case "Barnicki v. Vopper"

Dec. 08 2010 11:23 AM

God, Glenn Greenwald should be on WNYC every week -- finally, a progressive voice -- oh, and Brian, get your resume ready, Fox News wants you

Dec. 08 2010 11:23 AM

it sounds like u don't understand new media.

Dec. 08 2010 11:23 AM
Ginzberg from Pittsburgh

I made a contribution to Wikileaks today, via credit card online through their website, in response to Master Card et. al.'s actions, and in support of both Wikileaks and Anonymous' push back. Actually, it was the attacks on the MC, Swiss Bank, etc. sites that got me really excited.

Dec. 08 2010 11:23 AM
moshe from upper west side

wonderful guest!
i suggest all who agree to boycott Paypal and Amazon.

Dec. 08 2010 11:22 AM
Gianni from NYC

Viva Assange and the freedom fighters

Dec. 08 2010 11:22 AM

Glenn Greenwald is spouting red herrings.

Dec. 08 2010 11:22 AM

Why is there so little focus on how these documents got to wikileaks in the first place, instead we make Julian the star.

Dec. 08 2010 11:21 AM
Edward from NJ

Private companies are under no obligation to do business with anyone. Amazon, Paypal, and Mastercard have public opinion to consider as well as government pressure. If WikiLeaks feels that the alleged terms-of-service violations invoked are not valid, go to court and argue the case.

Dec. 08 2010 11:20 AM

I used to respect Glenn Greenwald. No more. He sounds extremely shrill. And he's ignoring Julian Assange's stated vendetta towards the US. I might feel differently if Wikileaks made available state documents from other countries. Targeting only the US definitely enters the realm of terrorism.

Dec. 08 2010 11:20 AM
pete from bk

I think this big baby needs a nap

Dec. 08 2010 11:19 AM

Thanks for having Glenn on.

Dec. 08 2010 11:19 AM
Andrew from New York

He is an unabashed enemy of the United States who actively induces others to provide him with weapons to use against us and other nations. We should seek his extradition, as we would any spy or thief. The real unsettling issue for me is Sweden's efforts to arrest him based on obviously non-criminal activity - the media has not focused enough on the facts claimed against him and how absurd those underlying sexual assault claims appear to be, as well as how those prosecutors are abusing their duty to do justice. "Politically correct" strikes again.

Dec. 08 2010 11:19 AM
Dave from SoHo

To Amazon, it's perfectly okay to sell a book promoting pedophilia, but it's not okay to access WikiLeaks?

Dec. 08 2010 11:17 AM

I disagreed with George Packer more, but I can't stand the way Glenn Greenwald argues.

Dec. 08 2010 11:17 AM
Mason from Queens

I find it interesting that two of the people who are most damaging to the Republic's constitution are from Australia-Murdock and Assange.

Dec. 08 2010 11:16 AM

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

Dec. 08 2010 11:14 AM
PaysanMontreal from Quebec Nation

Long live El Pais for supporting freedon of the press.

Devons plus de soutien.

Appuyez les droits humains et contre l'intimidation

Dec. 08 2010 11:14 AM
Ben from Park Slope

Has anyone else noted how much Brian (and everyone in the media) likes saying the words "WikiLeaks" and "Assange"?

I'm not saying Assange shouldn't be punished. But the bigger problem is the guy who leaked the docs in the first place.

It seems the media just likes saying "WikiLeaks" "Assange" "WikiLeaks" "Assange." Seriously.

Dec. 08 2010 11:13 AM
Gabby from Manhattan

He's not charged with espionage or anything like that. He's charged with rape. Let's not forget that. If he did do it, some woman out there will spend the rest of her life trying to cope with it.

Dec. 08 2010 11:12 AM

Another example of big corporations and or big government not knowing how to defend themselves from cyber attack and or data theft.
Time to think about tech. to bad our students are atl the both of the list vs other nations

Dec. 08 2010 11:12 AM
Edward from NJ

The DDoS attacks on WikiLeaks weren't any more sophisticated than those against Mastercard. There's no reason to assume the former came from a government.

Dec. 08 2010 11:12 AM
greg from nyc

sleazy companies like paypal and MC that took their commissions when it suited them,
hope that Julian's supporters keep this up and even expand these actions...

Dec. 08 2010 11:10 AM
Scott from Lower Manhattan

Question for Glenn:

Do you support the right of the US to send materiel to its military in Afghanistan without the Taliban knowing the exact time it does so and along what route?

Dec. 08 2010 11:10 AM

A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is not a "hack": it's the equivalent of everyone running for the entrances when the shops open on Black Friday.

There *is* a difference.

Dec. 08 2010 11:06 AM
john from cold spring

Question for Glenn:

Claes Borgstrom, the Swedish lawyer representing the 2 woman that have accused Assange of sexual molestation, is alone responsible for reintroducing the charge of rape. If not for the rape charge (which was ruled out by the first prosecutor), the Interpol warrant for Assange's arrest could not have been issued. How does Borgstrom factor into the decision to escalate and press the charge of rape, when the alleged victims themselves did not even want charges brought against Assange?

Dec. 08 2010 11:05 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.