The following is a response I received from Alex Gibney, director of the new documentary on WikiLeaks, “We Steal Secrets.” I have not added any comments to this response. It appears unedited as a kind of rebuttal to my review.

I will also take the time to note that, despite my strong criticisms, it is worth it to view the film. While it may inform the public of what exactly Gibney argues, claims and explores, no transcript of narration or interview segments can fully communicate how the stories of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are presented in the film. One has to see the clips, hear the music, watch how it all is edited, etc, to fully appreciate the power of this movie.

*

Thank you for your balanced review. While you would expect that I don’t agree with all of it (I don’t), I do respect the careful attention to detail that you have employed on this story. You have my admiration for the careful reporting that you have done over the last few years and my appreciation for taking the time to engage with my film seriously. Accordingly, I feel that it makes sense to send you a response.

1) It is true that Julian did not ask me for $1 million dollars. He asked me for money and then said (I took it as a point of negotiation) that the market rate for an interview with him was $1 million. I said exactly what happened. But the NY Times correction (which was done at my request but was inartfully phrased) should not be read to mean that Julian did not want to be paid a lot of money for an interview. He did. I’m sure we might have made a deal at, say $100,000. But I don’t pay for interviews.

Likewise, your interpretation of what happened next is incorrect. While Julian did ask me to seek out details of the criminal investigation, he asked me and my producer to give Julian “intel” on all the other interview subjects as a quid pro quo for his participation. By “intel” he meant details about their testimony and, in some cases, transcripts. That was a non-starter for me and I found it an “ironic” stance for someone who is supposed to be so interested in source protection.

2) RE: Sweden – You are correct that the purpose of the section was to show that the allegations leveled at Assange were not “ridiculous,” which is how they were being treated by Assange. You mention the condom and dna. There is some doubt as to what condom is pictured on screen, so it seemed pointless to add detail about dna. Only some of the testimony and evidence has been leaked. There is much to come. Perhaps the Swedish courts will find him innocent of all charges. My point was only to show that there is sufficient “cause” for legal proceedings—that it wasn’t a joke. The British courts agreed: they stated twice that if the allegations were proven, they would be crimes in the UK as well as Sweden.

Mr. Fowler’s account of events is incorrect. Alexa O’Brien recently published a British court timeline – on which Wiki and Sweden agree! – that makes the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and failure to appear look even worse. You are also wrong about the process of “interviewing” Assange. (For a complete recitation of this, I refer you to my piece in the New Statesman responding to John Pilger.) The Swedish prosecutor is prepared to charge Assange but cannot do so unless he is “arrested,” which must happen in Sweden. The only questioning that the Swedish prosecutor needs to do is to give Assange the opportunity to provide information which would prevent her from arresting him, which she clearly plans to do (if he ever goes to Sweden.)

The suggestion re: the motivation for JA possibly wanting to make women pregnant against their will is not “wildly lunatic.” If a Swedish prosecutor is alleging that Assange may have tried to make the women pregnant against their will (the basis of a possible charge) is it not relevant to understand his past practices?

3) Manning and Assange. You indicate that I asserted that Manning definitively spoke to Assange. But I did not. The film clearly states that the address was listed under Assange in Manning’s computer. Manning certainly thought he was talking to Assange. But the film does not state that as a fact.

4) I feel that your final conclusions about the film are unfair. The film makes the importance of the issues of transparency, secrecy and surveillance very clear. It is also very clear about Manning’s political motivations. It is also untrue to say that I dumped on Assange because he did not give me an interview. That is just wrong.

As many reviewers have noticed, Assange is cast in a very good light for most of the film.I do think that it is important to reckon with people as human beings rather than as political caricatures. In the case of Manning, in particular, his flaws and his great strengths – in other words his humanity – make his actions all the more powerful. You may feel free to criticize me for recognizing and celebrating his humanity. I am not sorry. Manning is a hero in this film precisely because – through his own words – we know him, not as a propaganda poster, but as a poignant, flawed and inspiring human being.

Best Regards,

Alex

PS – You may have noticed that WikiLeaks has “leaked” an annotated transcript of the film. Sadly, what is missing from the transcript are ALL of Bradley Manning’s words. That could be the result of malicious editing. More likely, a WL supporter made a bootleg audio recording of the film. That audio recording would not have picked up Manning’s words since, as you know, his words are printed on-screen. But WL could not admit this because then WL would not get credit for a mighty hack, only a low-tech recording. Sad.

Screen shot from White House video of Obama’s speech at the National Defense University

The speech by President Barack Obama, which touched upon perpetual war, his authority to carry out drone strikes, the efficacy of drones, closing Guantanamo Bay prison, adhering to the rule of law when fighting terrorism and even national security leaks was wide-ranging and bewildering. It was longer than the “State of the Union” address he gave this year.

A speech like this on his counterterrorism policies and civil liberties had not been given since his May 21, 2009, at the National Archives. In many ways, this was a repurposing of that speech with the inclusion of content intended to stifle criticism of the expansions of executive power he has embraced. Not responding to that criticism earlier and maintaining an excessive level of secrecy made it inevitable that his administration would have to cram all manner of talking points into a speech that would seemingly go on and on forever.

Obama, again, rejected the notion of perpetual war, saying,”We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.” He also said he intended to “engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.” And, “We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

Yet, as he seemed to admit America is on a path where it is engaged in perpetual war, he said in defense of this global war without end, “America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.”

It is essentially a public relations gambit, a recognition that critics are increasingly being considered credible so there must be a rebranding. That means the policies and operations could potentially remain the same, but the government will define what is being done as “persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks” and not some kind of “boundless global war.” It is no different from how the Justice Department has argued eliminating targets are not “assassinations” but a part of meting out “due process” because the Executive Branch applies multiple reviews before killing an alleged terrorist.

The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

Film director Alex Gibney (Creative Commons-licensed Photo by azipaybarah)

Academy Award-winning director Alex Gibney held a special screening for his new documentary, We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks, in Washington, DC, on May 21. Gibney also participated in a question and answer session after the film that was moderated by POLITICO‘s Josh Gerstein.

First, the title reinforces widespread perceptions created by the United States government that the WikiLeaks organization is out to “steal” secrets. Gibney has claimed that the title is “ironic.” Actually, the US government steals secrets. Former NSA director Michael Hayden says this in the film, but this aspect of US government operations takes up only a few seconds of the film. He does not explore how US government agencies are actually the ones engaged in stealing so the “irony” does not come through at all.

The opening of the film charts the rise of WikiLeaks—why editor-in-chief Julian Assange was “obsessed” with secrets, how the organization took on bank corruption in Iceland and who worked together to release the “Collateral Murder” video showing a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq. The expansion of the surveillance state after the September 11th attacks and the rise of what William Arkin and Dana Priest explored with their “Top Secret America” project provides a bit of context.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, who provided information to WikiLeaks, is introduced through what he said in his chats with hacker and government informant Adrian Lamo. Lines from the chat are typed across the screen. It becomes apparent that Lamo invited Manning to confide in him.

The film highlights Lamo’s decision to turn Manning into federal authorities, how he was viewed by others in the military, who he was socializing with in Boston, how he considered becoming a woman and some of the mental issues he was confronting while stationed as an intelligence analyst in FOB Hammer in Iraq.

Chat logs, suggestions and descriptions of Manning’s outbursts in the military are not particularly endearing to whatever contribution he has made to global society as a whistleblower, but Gibney never outright suggests that Manning’s mental health issues led him to leak classified information. He does include chat logs that show how Manning challenged the handing over of detainees to the Iraqi Federal Police, who would be tortured, because they had done nothing wrong and were just opponents of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Manning’s arrest and his confinement at Quantico are highlighted as well, with Gibney taking the story of Manning all the way up to his court martial.

In the second half of the film, Gibney broaches the issue of the sexual allegations that Assange has faced. It focuses on what led individuals that had worked with him to become alienated. His personality and ego, according to Gibney, along with a desire to keep his own secrets while trying to force the release of secrets from government and corporations, transform him into a character that drags WikiLeaks downward. And, as the film comes to an end, arguments are introduced that one of the downsides of WikiLeaks for Manning was not being able to communicate with the organization and explain what he was doing so he could not feel isolated. Loneliness is apparently the hallmark of a whistleblower and, as this can make one unstable, WikiLeaks bears some level of responsibility for not being able to comfort Manning.

As someone who has extensively covered the story of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, there are multiple aspects of the film that happen to be misleading, disingenuous or seem to be the product of a director who has an axe to grind.

In the End, Assange Refused to Grant Gibney an Interview

Gibney recounts in the film that he tried “over many months to get an on-camera interview with Assange.” He says, “After meetings and emails, I was finally summoned to the Norfolk mansion for a 6-hour negotiation. But Julian wanted money.” He states that Assange said the market rate for an interview with him was $1 million for an interview or he wanted Gibney to “spy” in his “other interviews and report back to him.”

This makes it seem like Assange demanded $1 million or else he would not appear in the film. As the New York Times noted in a correction, “While [Gibney] says that he rejected the demands, and that the market rate for an interview was $1 million, he does not specifically say that he rejected a demand from Mr. Assange for a $1 million fee for an interview.” Also, the “spying,” according to WikiLeaks, which claims to have a recording of a meeting with Gibney, was a request to inform Assange of any details he might come across related to the United States’ investigation into WikiLeaks.

A “Most Wanted Leaks” list compiled by WikiLeaks is presented as an effort to “bait whistleblowers.” Cast in this manner, audiences might think WikiLeaks was doing something wrong, but WikiLeaks was committing no crime by compiling a list of documents or recordings it thought deserved to be in the public record.

It was not only put together by WikiLeaks. This tweet from May 15, 2009, shows the organization accepted nominations. These apparently came from human rights groups, lawyers, historians, journalists and activists. As highlighted in the film, it reinforces arguments military prosecutors have made that this is evidence the organization “solicits” leaks in order to criminalize the organization. Nothing in the film indicates that Gibney is aware of this.

Gibney made the decision that he would show the allegations against Assange were not ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with that, except the people who speak about the allegations are providing hearsay. He highlights a torn condom that was pictured in a Swedish police report released to the press. What Gibney neglects to mention is “two forensic laboratories were unable to find conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA” on this condom, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.