Julian Assange - WikiLeaks (13 page)

He found it difficult to deal with the information and hard facts, and how to understand it in its context. “To discuss the document thoroughly, I think you have to provide some background beforehand. I also think people should be informed about the entire matter. Unfortunately, this means we have to take a detour and cannot directly relate to the information in our document. There's a point about the strategy of the Islamic Courts Union since 2005 and they only became a military force as of 2006.”

The key idea of WikiLeaks was to broadcast the leak received. The author of the article continued in the introduction:

The leaked document itself meant nothing without knowing about the existing political interactions between Somalia and allied and/or enemy countries. However, plunged into a political reality, it suddenly became more difficult to form a point of
view. The editor felt obliged to opt for a message like “it's more complicated than that,” because he couldn't find a ‘friendly' doctrine in this document. And reasonably so, as he didn't want to glorify a movement with an Islamic doctrine or denounce it as a terrorist movement when that was not quite the case. It would only throw fuel on the fire of American propaganda.

On December 19 2006, WikiLeaks members received a message from a communications expert who advised them on publishing the leak and its content. He advised them on captivating the readers to make sure they read until the end: use a punchy style and tone from the beginning, add any possible connections to recent or landmark events, involve the readers with questions and optimize legibility by avoiding obscure acronyms.

The choice of words became a delicate and probing one. “I mentioned the part ‘should be shot,' but only a few times. Should it be used more to be sensational? Should we mention it less to protect potential victims in Somalia? As we discussed, the time of worrying about consequences has probably past no matter what they are, but we need to consider it,” he said. WikiLeaks decided that the moment of truth had arrived. Its members were well aware of the risks resulting from these activities for the protagonists linked to the document. The choice between protection and truth was made.

How to write this document and who was going to read it? Of course the goal was to provide quality information, but to whom? To journalists or citizens? How to introduce the raw document? Writing meant communicating and to communicate one needed to have a style. But at that moment WikiLeaks did not yet know
where to publish its documents, who the site was for and what would happen to the hosted information.

When the author suggested his article to other WikiLeaks members, he included footnotes, specifying that they help members understand his references, but didn't necessarily need to appear in the published version. This would provide sources for this article, except Wikipedia ones which were quite often journalistic ones taken from other sources like the BBC, reputed for its quality of journalism and investigations.

The gap was closing between WikiLeaks and journalism, as it was indeed about an article, which to be understood in its entirety, not only required references and understanding a context already explained by journalists, but also a style of writing that took readers into account.

The document was approved, and at the end of December, WikiLeaks members sent their first document on Somalia to selected partners: CounterPunch and the others. But not a single one of them published the article.

Julian was surprised because he didn't get an approval or a rejection. The end of the year is always a bad time and the text is just too long. Moreover, WikiLeaks is not recognized as a regular supplier of articles, so Julian needed to find an intermediary.

However, on January 3 2007, the first article was posted on a blog run by Steven Aftergood, the editor of the ‘Secrecy News' newsletter since 1991 and the Director of the Federation of American Scientists. Backed up by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, (a law that prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press or the right to peaceable assembly), he fights against the American government's arbitrary classification of
documents said to be secret. He published sensitive information or supposedly secret information on his site. He claimed to contribute in this way to the proper workings of democracy, all while pointing out that he was not an enemy of the government.

He didn't agree with WikiLeaks' editorial policy and stated this directly on his blog: “To me, transparency is a means to an end, and that end is an invigorated political life, accountable institutions, opportunities for public engagement. For them, transparency and exposure seem to be ends in themselves.” He declined getting involved in the advisory board by divulging certain passages of e-mails sent to him from members of the organization.

He did however support their actions by linking to this first post about Somalia on his blog.

As of January 4 2007, WikiLeaks received e-mails from journalists who had heard about the site. It was the start of a series of requests for information from the press, mainly independent journalists who worked for scientific papers, but also correspondents for the
Federal Times
,
Technology Daily
and
Wired News
.

They noticed that the blog posting aroused a lot of interest with the press and had to very quickly prepare answers to all these questions. The requests mainly concerned them and WikiLeaks, and very little on the information they'd made available.

Although they enjoyed the benefits that putting these documents online brought them, especially for their visibility, the risks that could ensue scared them: government surveillance entailing possible prosecution that would require the help of lawyers. In fact, they still didn't have a sizeable advisory board to respond to attacks. At the beginning, they decided to follow up on questions case-by-case, but the task took too much time and
the questions were often repetitive. They decided to prepare a formatted e-mail listing all of WikiLeaks' ambitions and opted to write and send out a press release.

John Young was disappointed in Steven Aftergood's attitude. He shouldn't have announced that the wikileaks.org site was active or that the first document was freely accessible. Aftergood released the information, followed by comments against WikiLeaks' main goal. In fact, he made dismissive comments about WikiLeaks and suggested that his own activity was more honorable and respectable. “Reporters are competitors of WikiLeaks as any keepers of secrets and peddlers of inside information. They want to appear to be ‘responsible' arbiters of what information gets published,” said John Young. He added: “Some will promise one thing to get information and do the opposite for publication.” He also provides raw information like WikiLeaks on his own site. The disagreement was played out at the editorial level.

Young was really angry at Aftergood for having divulged internal information to WikiLeaks while the organization contacted him in good faith. In turn, Aftergood answered publicly by accusing them of leaking unfiltered and, therefore, dangerous information. On the other hand, in asking to join the advisory board, the team referred to John Young and Daniel Ellsberg. Aftergood had now become ‘dangerous' with the information he'd received. John Young warned the organization against using private information as a means of recruitment.

The agents of government authorities examined the inside of WikiLeaks through journalists, supporters, donors and members of the advisory board, customary for people who wanted to constitute an opposing force. They had to expect lies, piracy, treachery and all other methods used to eliminate dissidents.
They also had to expect mockery, insults, ridicule, admiration and skepticism. John Young believed they had to be as discreet as possible or else WikiLeaks would be doomed. Anonymity had to be kept in terms of all communication with the press and potential recruits.

Young was the one who registered the domain name ‘wikileaks.org.' The site name was registered with the NSI Network Solutions who managed domain names. As an owner, his details were on the WHOIS lists (literally
who is
, a database of existing sites accessible to anyone) of this private company. The less information they had on WikiLeaks members, the better.

WikiLeaks members panicked faced with the sudden interest of journalists, as they weren't really ready for this. They answered reporters by justifying themselves as being mostly mathematicians.

They were asked whether the documents in their possession were issued directly from Western governments – but that was not the case. Were Western journalists looking for a scandal at all costs?

They received replies from sites like POGO (Project On Government Oversight, an independent American non-profit organization that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct on its site pogo.org in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government), known for its critical views. They asked them for their support, followed by a request to join the advisory board. Journalists sent them their articles on WikiLeaks and were satisfied with the first responses. However, they needed to try and be more careful in their communication, as they had to monitor the use of their
declaration. The proposed improvement was to answer questions before they were asked.

On January 5 2007, they decided to publish a FAQ as quickly as possible to answer questions not yet asked and set people straight on some exaggerated and erroneous interpretations already published.

At the same time, WikiLeaks members noticed that somebody had registered the domain name wikileaks.net. In the beginning, always very open, they thought that this person wanted to help them and become a relay. It was Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, who rushed to reserve this name in order to deliver a commercial blow.

They also received an offer from a young start-up that suggested creating an online comment tool. Although they had enough expertise to create what they needed, they didn't shoot down the offer and remained very courteous. Any kind of help was welcome because there was tons of work.

They got an answer to ‘Question advisory board' from the coordinator of the Freedom House site, a non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world. However, it was mainly funded by the NED
¹⁷
and had been accused of being a cover for the CIA.

Freedom House found the request interesting and said they would think about it.

Julian sent the e-mail request without consulting the other members with the idea of testing a foundation he considered a bit ‘conspiratorial.' They could very well end up a victim of leaks on WikiLeaks! Knowing your enemies from the inside to better fight them was a well-known manipulation technique used
by strategists. And Julian was one of them. The knowledge of the world of organizations, their connections and sponsors were needed to successfully carry out his actions. Who was lying? Who was telling the truth? Who was transparent? Who was being secretive in order to clog up the inner workings of government? The links between power, foundations and organizations had to be untangled to make the right choices.

Sometimes, the answers on joining the advisory board were quite surprising. Julian informed the other WikiLeaks members of the e-mail, then commented on their answer in these words:

“Disarming. FH along with NED are notorious US State/CIA money launderers. The goal is not to get them to accept, although that might be rather interesting, but to make them feel we are on the same “side” by the early approach and enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

On January 7 2007, the members made the final touches to the WikiLeaks site and asked again for help because they were swamped. They prepared the launch by setting up a network of phone correspondents throughout the world to answer the press.

On the same day, Julian sent around an e-mail that summed up the WikiLeaks organization: “If it stays small like it is now (a budget of USD 50,000 a year and volunteers), the result would be interesting yet far from everyone's ambitions. Ideally, the goal should be to start with ‘heavy artillery' and anticipate a budget of USD 5 million before the end of July.”

John Young fiercely answered: