Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange irresponsibly helped overthrow the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt and end the occupation of Iraq.
When it’s all said and done, there’s no doubt that the hundreds of stories exposing the intricate web of tax avoidance and laundering, also known as the Panama Papers, will be an important blockbuster feat of journalism. The sheer size of the leak (11.5 million documents) and scope of the project led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (which brought together over 100 news outlets) is as staggering as it is impressive. The implications—the prime minister of Iceland has resigned, and dozens of investigations are allegedly underway around the world—will be felt for years.
Why then, in this moment of well-earned glory, would the primary party responsible for this act of journalism go out of its way to take a swipe at WikiLeaks, and, by extension, a prisoner of conscience?
ICIJ director Gerald Ryle was quoted in Wired (4/4/16):
Ryle says that the media organizations have no plans to release the full dataset, WikiLeaks-style, which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals along with the public figures on which the group’s reporting has focused. “We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly,” Ryle says. He says he advised the reporters from all the participating media outlets to “go crazy, but tell us what’s in the public interest for your country.”
Some quick background: In 2010, military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked a cache of documents to WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing enterprise led by Julian Assange, leading to a number of stories exposing the dark side of both the United States and its allies. The documents mostly consisted of State Department cables that showed the cynical inner workings of US activities overseas, the “Afghanistan War Diary” and “Iraq War Logs” that showed the Pentagon had been lying about the number of civilians casualties, and the “Collateral Murder” video that showed a US Army Apache helicopter in Iraq firing on a group of innocent people in Baghdad, including journalists from Reuters.
Manning was quickly arrested, held in conditions the UN special rapporteur on torture called “inhuman and degrading treatment,” and ultimately sentenced to 35 years in prison. Her leaks uncovered torture, abuse, diplomatic duplicity, the killing of innocent civilians and a whole host of unseemly and potentially illegal behavior—the revelation of which was of tremendous public value. So why, one is compelled to ask, would the director of the ICIJ—no doubt basking in a career high—go out of his way to call what Manning and WikiLeaks did “irresponsible”?
The implication of calling WikiLeaks irresponsible is that Manning’s leaks somehow harmed innocent people. The problem is there is no evidence of this ever happening. Despite multiple attempts by the United States government and its media allies to show otherwise, an internal review by the Pentagon found “no instances…of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.”
The idea that the Manning leaks ever harmed any innocents is entirely a fiction that was promoted early on and never went away. It’s a shame to hear ICIJ heavily imply it, and to see Wired publish it without question. The reality is that Assange, WikiLeaks and their media partners redacted thousands of documents and released only a fraction of the total received, despite the cartoon “bulk dump” media narrative that insisted otherwise.
There is, however, ample evidence that the Manning leaks not only contributed to the ousters of US-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, but also expedited the end of the US’s official occupation of Iraq. It’s a complicated tale, but one worth noting, given the constant recriminalization of Manning and the oft-short memories of our pundit class.
It’s well-known that Obama’s “withdrawal” from Iraq at the end of 2011 was negotiated between the US and Iraq during the Bush administration. What most people don’t know is that Obama and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wanted to delay the pull-out and keep a “residual force” of 30,000 American troops in Iraq. The US troops, though, required immunity granted to them by the Iraqi government. This condition was a political deal breaker for the Iraqi congress—already teetering on the edge of illegitimacy—since only months earlier, the Manning leaks and subsequent follow-up reports had blown the lid off the summary execution of ten Iraqi civilians. As Slate (6/4/13) recapped in 2013 (emphasis mine):
A leaked diplomatic cable provided evidence that during an incident in 2006, US troops in Iraq executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence. The disclosure of this cable was later a significant factor in the Iraqi government’s refusal to grant US troops immunity from prosecution beyond 2011, which led to US troops withdrawing from the country.
Belittling someone serving 35 years in prison for an act of whistleblower bravery is both unnecessary and harmful, and comes off as little more than an attempt to ingratiate oneself to an elite that is never going to like whistleblowers, no matter how PR-savvy they may be.
“There have been some times when WikiLeaks could have done a better job redacting,” Chase Madar, who chronicled Manning’s trial and the WikiLeaks fallout in The Passion of Chelsea Manning, told FAIR. “But the harm from these lapses has been minimal. Overall WikiLeaks has done a terrific job, and they have done the world a great service. Dumping on them does not serve the long-term interests of ICIJ or transparency in general.”
CORRECTION: This post originally stated that Chelsea Manning’s sentence carried no possibility of parole. Actually, she will be eligible for parole in 2020.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
In this case I disagree with you. I personally think that yes, this was a MORE responsible way to do it. It seems that you are avoiding the idea that there are levels of responsible decision-making. Those other groups chose a way to reveal, fine. Giving access and vetting is undoubtedly more responsible unless they believed that any additional journalistic exposure would lead to silencing the info which I doubt would have happened.
I don’t think that that inherently makes the wiki leak irresponsible, as you say they say.
there’s a huge space inbetween responsible and irr…
perhaps not jump the gun on their meaning
thanks
If we’re focusing on irresponsibility, the question needs to be addressed, “Who are the most irresponsible participants in these events?”
I won’t give the answer but simply highlight the innocent parties who’ve been slaughtered down the decades by their unwelcome, hostile, plundering, invading forces.
Well, who is ICIJ protecting with such “responsibility”?
Alexandra of Forbidden Knowledge TV writes about the released info, in an email:
//
We know that all of the corrupt elites
worldwide engage in offshore banking,
so why don’t we see mention of just
one transnational corporation or just
one Wall Street bankster – or even one
of the thousands of denizens of the
US Government, currently profiting
from every kind of kickback imaginable,
including the large-scale trafficking of
Afghan heroin, that’s led to the
skyrocketing of US heroin overdoses?
Why?
Because the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ),
tasked with releasing this information
(which you and I will never be able to
see for ourselves) is funded and
directed, almost in its entirety by the
US-based Center for Public Integrity,
which, in turn is funded by such
organizations as the Ford Foundation,
Carnegie Endowment, Rockefeller
Family Fund, WK Kellogg Foundation
and the Open Society Foundation
(Georg Soros).
As Craig Murray, former British
Ambassador to Uzbekistan writes in his
article, Corporate Media Gatekeepers
Protect Western 1% From Panama
Leak:
“Do not expect a genuine expose…The
dirty secrets of Western corporations will
remain unpublished.” //
” which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals along with the public figures on which the group’s reporting has focused.” Does this mean that they will not be release of names of U.S. politicians, leaders and billionaires who have used this to avoid taxes and shield their assets?
” which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals along with the public figures on which the group’s reporting has focused.” Does this mean that they are not going to release the names of U.S. politicians, leaders, and billionaires who are using this to hide assets and avoid taxes?
“The implication of calling WikiLeaks irresponsible is that Manning’s leaks somehow harmed innocent people.”
That’s not what he said — yours is a straw-man argument. They are trying to look responsible, preventing accusations of having put people’s lives at risk. By doing so, they make the IMPORTANT content of the leak the real news. Manning is a hero. Unfortunately, the Wikileaks case allowed established media to move the attention from the message to the messenger — Not Manning, but Assange. ICIJ are trying to force everyone to pay attention to the message and ensure the maximum respectability for their organisation. I can understand why they did so.
No, I don’t think they are selling out Manning.
Here are just three informative comments under the article “‘Panama Papers’ Leak Being Called “the Wikileaks of the Mega-Rich” by Alexandra Jacobo published yesterday at Nation of Change:
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/04/04/panama-papers-leak-called-wikileaks-mega-rich/
—————
ShaunMarie: Folks – the Panama papers are big, but really only confirm what we already know. And, there is something bothering me.
The Unaoil scandal is far bigger than this. The Panama papers is mostly about rich people hiding their ill-gotten gains in what is, in fact, a legal rip-off.
The Unaoil scandal, on the other hand – involves collusion between big oil, the military, various middle eastern despots, military contractors and various state departments – including bribes, arming and funding ‘terrorists’, and ensuring a constant state of war in the middle east for gain and profit.
Yet, this much larger and more egregious story has been completely bumped from the news. When a big story gets bumped in such a way, my radar goes off.
—
nonclassical reply to ShaunMarie: ..as for Unaoil scandal: “Chayes later began working for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, waging an internal war to persuade policymakers to focus on corruption. The issue ultimately reached the desk of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who largely dismissed it in a 2010 memo that remains classified”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/unaoil-bribery-scandal-corruption_us_56fa2b06e4b014d3fe2408b9
—
spixleatedlifeform reply to nonclassical: Her book has it in detail. Includes an historical perspective (most of the first half) that’ll knock your socks off and lead to a thousand new questions. THIEVES OF STATE: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security 2015 by Sarah Chayes. SPLF
—
Why are taking a shot at WikiLeaksl? Is it because they are trying to explain why they are protecting some of those who have shell corporations. The question you need to ask is: Why does anyone need a shell corporation except to hide money? Then: Why do you need to hide money unless it is to keep the rightful people who you owe some of it to from knowing about it?
Pissing on your peeps to pander to the plutocrats
FACT CHECK: Chelsea Manning was not “sentenced to 35 years in prison without the possibility of parole,” as Adam Johnson falsely reports. She’ll be up for parole in 2020, when she will be age 32.
From the following article: “What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include
Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)
among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.”
http://www.mintpressnews.com/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-panama-leak/215295/
“We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly.” = “We’re not going to release anything that would make the US look bad.”
This is good to know. I’m very suspicious (without having a great deal of hard evidence to support that suspicion) of this leaker’s motives. Either those who have come into possession of this trove are deliberaley using it in an improper manner, a possiblity suggested by Craig Murray (http://bit.ly/1McqhXq), or it’s that ‘in conjunction with’ a black op that involved the selection of this one company, namely Mossack Fonseca, for leaking info. Because, as far as I know, there’s not merely one company helping tax evaders to do their thing. In other words, The targetting of Putin (whose name hasn’t been found in the documents) has been undertaken with relish. Clearly, That is a desirable outcome (of this leak) to those (The Guardian for sure) allied with Western governments (whose foreign policy can be summed up as destruction for profit). That would be a desirable outcome of the tool that is the Guardian, but is that a desirable outcome of powerful state actors who have the capacity and willingness to ensure that that outcome can be actualized? But, Over 11,000 docs does suggest there’s many more miscreants here, which may indeed include a plethora of Americans. I mean, we ‘know’ that tax evasion is rife (global). It’s not even possible that the greatest number of cheats are not American, in my view.
Luke Harding and David Leigh’s book on Julian Assange, a people’s champion, disgusted me.
I couldn’t agree more Arby. That was the first thing that jumped out at me. The first thing that jump-ed out at me was the hits on Putin. There is something else afoot here. This law firm is not the only one doing this.Are they the sacrificial lamb? Or the false flag.? This has a long way to go
For shame. Couldn’t you facilitate a write-in campaign?
Nothing new. Fits a pattern that goes back to June 2013.
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/confronting-edward-snowdens-remarks-on-bradley-manning/
It seems like the Panama leak has been designed by western interests to expose, only, non American crooks,
it is so evident by the absence, in the leaked documents, of any US corporations, individuals, or politicians, who skillfully use legal loopholes to stash trillions of dollars in financial paradises; Panama being one of those.
It should not surprise anyone if this leak has strings attaching it to powerful financial entities in wall street,or even to political or security organizations in Washington, The EU, and other friendly regimes all over the world.
Says here that “the Collateral Murder video that showed a US Army Apache helicopter in Iraq firing on a group of innocent people in Baghdad..”
In the “Permission to Engage” documentary a colleague of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh said Namir called him at six o’clock in the morning on July 12, 2007 and said he was going to photograph an American Humvee being attacked by the Mahdi Army.
Just after ten that morning Namir took three photographs of that Humvee from the last position reported to the Apaches as the location these combatants were using to attack the humvee (Hotel 2/6).
Do you really think an early morning attack, reported on the transcript, by combatants hiding behind a large dirt pile had nothing in common with Namir’s three photographs of a Humvee that included a large dirt pile in the foreground? And that the sixteen men in that open courtyard when the Reuters employees arrived were innocent civilians?
“We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly,”
How is this different from “We will decide what is important for the public to be aware of.”?
This is like mocking your parents because you are making more money than they did.
Egypt was a dismal failure, and with Wikileaks now tweeting a spiteful swipe at ICIJ from a fan, someone at Wikileaks is looking very childish. The Wikileaks website is a useful resource. That is simply not the kind of objective ICIJ had in mind. Consider the long history of Süddeutsche Zeitung and their recent great work with some of the Snowden-related stories. ICIJ chose excellent partners , some slightly off the expected path and this project will take many unexpected turns in the coming months.
The statements I have seen from Wikileaks, especially the one questionable tweet, are a real embarrassment. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717894218694463488
I should add that Süddeutsche Zeitung made a good decision to manage this project with ICIJ as their partner, and together they have worked a miracle, thanks to cautious use of technology and human concern.
Human concern, Indy? Very doubtful. I strongly suspect this was orchestrated by the Elite for nefarious reasons that will become apparent in due time. For example, the protests for Iceland’s president’s resignation. Isn’t Iceland one of the countries that nationalized its banks as a result of the 2008 financial crisis? I smell another regime change brewing…
The decoys trying to justify ICIJ’s careful target picking are fooling very few, if any at all. They are so exposed that all can see they are wearing no clothes, from a mile away.
Why does this article assume that the ICIJ director’s criticism of WikiLeaks has anything to do with Iraq? Ryle warns against the danger of exposing private individuals along with public officials. He is most likely thinking of Julian Assange’s controversial decision to release more than 200,000 unredacted State Dept. cables without reviewing them first.
That decision was condemned as irresponsible by WikiLeaks’ own journalistic partners. There was no implied criticism of Private Manning for making the cables available; the blame was directed at Assange for not respecting the agreed-upon editing process. I agree with Giorgio that there is no reason to interpret Ryle’s remarks as a slap at Manning.
Finally, while there seem to be very few documented cases of harm to innocent individuals caused by WikiLeaks, the idea that at least some innocents have been harmed is not “entirely a fiction.” Ethiopian journalist Argaw Ashine was forced to flee his country after his name turned up in one of the hastily released diplomatic cables.
None of this negates the good that WikiLeaks has done, but that doesn’t make them immune from criticism.
Panama Papers hype. The way it was done is more like Walmart marketing than serious reporting. And it seems that Snowden et al have also fallen into the trap of the impressive numbers of documents ‘the biggest leak ever!!!’, without wondering why virtually all the mentioned politicians are from what we call ‘rogue’ countries … Great opportunity for Putin-bashing and a few – carefully selected ? – other ones.
Something smelly about all this: according to the Suddeutsche Zeitung’s (the original recipient of the leaked files) website the following method was used to identify culprits:
“The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others.
The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists.”
That means that revealed names depended on a – subjective – initial choice of individuals to investigate. Wonder what criteria were used to put people on that list and who’s missing on it?
Are we to believe that in 40 years not one single politician or politician’s family member from the USA has used this particular company’s services?
Or did by some miracle every single one of them use other firms?
This is a dangerous approach to publicly scapegoat some cherry-picked culprits, while those who happen to use different off-shore providers – or were not on the initial check list – are left off the hook. A dangerously biased and manipulative blame game. It also is hard to believe that 100 (or was it 400, too many digits in the PP promotion) journalists in dozens of countries worked on this for a full year without any leaks, not to mention all the world’s NSA’s sniffing it out.
And it is far too serious a subject to be ‘marketed’ in the self-congratulatory way some of the involved media do, emphasizing how BIG a catch it is, bigger than anything before, etc, etc, instead of carefully emphasizing that the named persons are like winning tickets in a lottery, except that in this case winning means losing. That this is just the tip of an iceberg and that some much worse cases might have been overlooked. For me the most vital info would have been about the part the big banks play in this, not the PM of Iceland having failed to mention his wife’s millions or some obscure criminal’s lack of honesty being exposed.
I don’t think it will change anything either, as stringent international cooperation would be needed and that is only granted for corporate deals like TPP, TTIP etc. But it most certainly will ruin some careers and even lives.
Responsible reporting indeed!
Great reporting. Huge bravo FAIR and Adam Johnson.