Academy-Award winning filmmaker appeared on “Democracy Now!” with host Amy Goodman to discuss his new documentary on WikiLeaks called “We Steal Secrets.” In Park City, Utah, where the film recently premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, he revealed some of the conclusions he draws in the film.
First, the title may owe itself to a quote from former CIA director Michael Hayden, who in the documentary says, “I’m going to be very candid, alright? We steal secrets. We steal other nations’ secrets. One cannot do that above board and be very successful for a very long period of time.” But there is something inherently disingenuous about naming one’s documentary about WikiLeaks something that involves the stealing of information if one thinks WikiLeaks has in any way performed a journalistic service by releasing previously classified documents.
Gibney discusses the benefit to global citizens of being able to read the Afghan War Logs and the US State Embassy Cables. He also outlines the powerful audio and footage in the “Collateral Murder” video WikiLeaks released of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad. And he acknowledges that part of what becomes so clear with the people involved in the leaks is this severe problem of over-classification.
He appears to be sympathetic to the potential of WikiLeaks to bring truth or transparency to government, which makes me question Gibney’s artistic decision to name his film “We Steal Secrets” even more. It inappropriately casts WikiLeaks as a stealer of information, which is the conventional wisdom most Americans subscribe to and what the United States government wants US citizens to believe so it can pursue WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks staffers through a widespread criminal investigation that we know exists.
More significantly, Gibney seems to have drawn a conclusion on a link between Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier the military is prosecuting for allegedly providing classified information to WikiLeaks, and Assange. Here’s the exchange he had with Goodman on “Democracy Now!”:
AMY GOODMAN: And the link you see between Private Bradley Manning and Julian Assange? Of course, Private Bradley Manning accused of leaking all of these documents to WikiLeaks.
ALEX GIBNEY: Correct. And we don’t know. Julian Assange has always maintained that he doesn’t know, or he didn’t know, that these documents that came to him were given to him by Bradley Manning. The military has slowly been leaking chats between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, which indicate—and also Julian—Manning’s chats also indicate some familiarity. So—
AMY GOODMAN: But how do you know that they’re—if the military is leaking these, that they’re actually between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange? In fact, in the film, you put quotes around Julian Assange. I guess that’s what the chat does. How do you know that it’s Julian Assange?
ALEX GIBNEY: No, no, no. In Bradley Manning’s computer, we know—it was introduced as evidence. Now, I suppose you could say—we’ll see whether David Coombs challenges that evidence in court. But actually, David Coombs, who is Bradley Manning’s attorney, has already gone to the court, in a very unusual way, to say that they’re prepared to plead guilty to a number of more minor offenses having to do with taking data off classified networks and also leaking them to WikiLeaks. So, you know, I think what they discovered on Bradley Manning’s computer was that the address of these chats, you know, Manning had, in fact, in his address book, indicated that this one address, which is seen in the chats, was the address of Julian Assange. [emphasis added]
Gibney is referring to testimony or argument in hearings at Fort Meade, which I have been attending since they began to be held regularly back in December 2011.
This is the evidence Gibney is referring to, which I wrote about in the book I co-authored with The Nation‘s Greg Mitchell, Truth & Consequences: The US vs. Bradley Manning:
In the afternoon, [Mark Johnson of the Computer Crime Investigative Unit] resumed his testimony and immediately dropped a bombshell: he had found “chat logs” between a Jabber user account, “dawgnetwork,” associated with Manning and a Jabber user account, “pressassociation,” associated with Julian Assange. The account associated with Assange had once been associated with “Nathaniel Frank.” The chats had been deleted but were uncovered in unallocated space. They contained an exchange that mentioned an upload, probably of classified information, on March 5, 2010.
There were logs showing traffic between two computers. One IP address was associated with PeRiQuito AB (PRQ), a Swedish internet provider, and could be linked to WikiLeaks. The other address was associated with a computer that was in Manning’s aunt’s house.
…
[Johnson] described examining an external hard drive found in Manning’s living quarters. Of relevance to the case, he found a text file dated November 30, 2009, that had contact information for a “Mr. Julian Assange.” It said, “You can currently contact our investigator directly in Iceland,” and included a phone number.
From the exchange, it does not appear Gibney made this clear to viewers that the government is suggesting he used an account with a pseudonym to exchange messages with Manning. What he is concluding is there is, in fact, a link. Though the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Assange was using the account to talk to Manning, he’s accepted it as a fact on the mere basis that Manning is willing to plead guilty to lesser offenses where he accepts responsibility for transferring some of the information that WikiLeaks eventually released.
It is a leap to suggest the plea shows he did communicate with Assange and they can be linked. Manning may have communicated with a staffer who has prepared to accept the information he wanted to provide. Manning wanted to start worldwide discussion. Even Gibney concludes, from the chat logs between Manning and hacker Adrian Lamo, Manning thought he was engaging in a whistle-blowing act by allegedly passing on the information to WikiLeaks.
Here’s the clip of Gibney on “Democracy Now!”:



33 Comments

Fascism is alive in America. Kill it before it kills US. Protect the oil whores? Crowley is correct in his assessment, because it is corporate fascism, enabled by government? !
.
Immediately after Amy goodman’s interview with Gibney she interviews Jen Robinson, Assange’s defence lawyer.
I find it more than a bit suspicious that the interview is missing a full 7 minutes and that no transcript is available, even if some technical problems were experienced. Does Democracy Now not tape their programs? Do they have no backup of their interviews? Can they not provide a transcript of what Amy asked Jen and how she answered?
All very suspicious that Assange’s defence is stifled after the hit piece by Gibney runs without an issue.
The cold blooded murder of journalists by US. Fucking gross.
I’ll just come out and say I don’t believe “Democracy Now!” faked technical difficulties so Assange’s attorney couldn’t talk on-air after Gibney’s interview. Nor do I think “Democracy Now!” was doing a hit piece with Gibney.
It’s not a hit. Read the exchange I put in my post. Goodman is visibly skeptical of Gibney’s certainty. I think that people should be.
He’s certain about the evidence of a link but not certain about the risk a grand jury investigation poses to Assange? Pretty dubious.
John Young, founder of Cryptome says of Alex Gibney and his movie, “On September 30, 2011, we met Alexis and a Jigsaw videographer (sorry, don’t remember his name) at Zuccotti Park, stated that we had read accounts in law suits about Gibney’s biased treatment of targets — flattering them to take part in interviews then betraying their trust with attacks of highly selective quotes and clips for maximum drama and entertainment. Based on that we said we wanted nothing more to do with Jigsaw, that Gibney was a double-crossing son of a bitch like most documentarians and journalists. We asked the videographer if he recorded that. He said yes. We went off to video OWS and they followed behind videoing our videoing.”
See here.
How quaint of a hit job? Is this guy an undercover CIA operative?
Me wants to know when my government acts like fascist scum, advancing a corporate agenda under the facade of protection?
Nice to see how Exxon Mobile again fucks Iraq as EM fucks us? Not!
It was Gibney doing the hit job……
Kevin, I have huge respect for Amy and Democracy Now and give them full benefit of the doubt.
You know Amy, maybe you could get answers to my questions about; no transcript, no taped backup, and what happened?
That information is all I’ll need but my tweets to @democracynow received no reply so I’m in the dark.
Please turn on the light with facts if you can. Thanks.
BTW, keep up the great work.
Robinson’s link was cut off. I am guessing Secret Government COINTELPRO, as usual. Our brave government info warriors destroy freedom everyday, as they promote fascism.
This “documentary” is worthless, as it presents yet another false equivalence. Do not waste your money for this propaganda.
There’s no transcript because the interview stopped there. What she did say is up on the website now.
He certainly doesn’t approve of Assange’s decision to seek asylum from Ecuador.
The title of the documentary is very, very misleading.
After listening to Amy’s interview with Gibney, I think BUT would be a more suitable title. Gibney: “I kinda like what Assange is doing, but…
I listened to the interview while walking my dog tonight, so didn’t actually see any of Amy’s body language, but the skepticism in her voice during the interview was palpable.
What Gibney chose to leave out of the documentary, assuming what he didn’t mention in the interview was also left out of the documentary, is very telling as to his bias.
I also think the fact that JA wouldn’t allow him an interview telling, as JA is hardly shy. I think JA did some research, figured Gibney was going to do a less than flattering documentary and told Gibney to fuck off.
Major bummer that the link with Wikileak’s lawyer was lost.
More terrible data collecting with poor results. I hope the film flops.
Kevin, have you listened to the interview? There’s at least another 30 seconds of semi-audible conversation that takes place after the transcript ends and before the music starts. I’d be amazed if no one had a smart phone that was recording this interview through to its conclusion.
But putting that aside, there is certainly lots more that needed to be said to defend against Gibney’s attack. As it stands the defence was aborted due to technical issues while the prosecution (Gibney) proceeded in full. Amy’s body language during that interview shows her disgust with Gibney so I suspect she would like to see a more robust defence.
Hopefully she will do a follow-up with Jen Robinson and permit this fuller defence to occur.
Great work as usual, Kevin. The film sure seems prejudicial, conscious hit job or no.
Actually, I’m wondering if this documentary isn’t more government propaganda, along the lines of Zero Dark Thirty but aimed at DFHs. Pro-WL/JA, anti-war crowd aren’t going to waste their time and money on Zero but give them a slightly pro-WL documentary, rather than a film, admit the Collateral Damage video was public before WL released it, so no harm, no foul. Even go so far as to say the Collateral Damage release was good, as it brought the war home to American’s then slander JA for the rest of the film. Gibney implied he had seen some of the evidence against Bradley Manning, what’s to say this documentary wasn’t someone else’s idea?
I’m getting really cynical in my old age.
I don’t think it’s anywhere near as abhorrent as this.
Yeah,it’s up on the website now….lets stop pretending that everyone has access to a computer…most people I know listen to DemNow via radio
I agree with gerglbean…seems very awkward that Assange’s lawyer response was inaudible…
In addition,anyone notice that during portions of RT-Russia Today’s broadcast at times the audio disappers.
WE know that our Govt is spying on us…it’s therefore not inconceivable that certain broadcast programming can be interferred with.
Did anyone catch Gibney saying he did not get a chance to interview Assange but then in the same breath he says he spoke with Assange for SIX HOURS…
The CIA & Hollywood is working hand in hand,so let’s stop pretending that Gibney is doing independent programming…..Is movie,documentary was funded by Universal…….
Your link gave me this:
Which may or may not have been your point.
same
I think this is what Kevin was linking to. Sydney Morning Herald.
And I expect he means the tone of the new Wikileaks film is sick if it is pro-war with Iran propaganda as Asssange claims.
Thanks. Why is that not a surprise. As Tut says: gah.
I’ve seen a few films by Gibney: the Enron one, the Jack Abramoff one, and last year’s clergy abuse one (he was at the screening and spoke). Also “No End in Sight”, about Iraq, which I thought was particularly poorly done, but he only produced that one, didn’t direct it.
These things always get the good reviews in the kinds of publications that review this sort of film, but I’ve been less impressed.
He always manages to get some good interviews on screen, and that’s an accomplishment, but he doesn’t seem to be able to put things together to tell a really informative (and IMO well-informed) story.
Now having seen him speak at the screening and on Democracy Now!, I think he may not have the intellectual equipment to really get on top of these complicated issues. And in a case like Wikileaks (where, to use his term, “Goliath” still may win, making being on “David’s” side pretty lonely on the cocktail party circuit), that leaves him vulnerable to falling for the establishment line.
This business of the title is reprehensible. I assumed, as will everybody, that “We Steal Secrets” is some sort of quote from Assange or Wikileaks. To instead repurpose a quote from the frikkin’ DCI, in a context where Assange and Wikileaks (and Manning) are involved with allegations of espionage, is just indefensible and contaminates the whole project.
I am not sure what the significance of the Manning Assange chats are. Do the chats indicate that Assange was actively soliciting the information or were the chats more to do with verifying the information?
Since Assange himself has not been asked to be involved in making the documentary, nor endorse this one, I wouldn’t recommend that anyone waste money watching it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/23/julian-assange-calls-wikileaks-movie-a-massive-propaganda-attack/
The question really is, “Is what Wikileaks (maybe Assange) did in soliciting information (maybe from Manning) any different to what Woodward and Berstein did in soliciting information from Deep Throat that became the Watergate Story?”
Every GOOD news organisation solicits news from as close to source as it can get it. On the battlefield if possible. The Government hates this as it exposes them, which is what the primary function of news media is; they are to be the watchdogs, beholding to no one, and fearlessly and without favour exposing NEWS of Government lies and deceit. Unfortunately, they have become stenographers copying Government releases and never questioning what they hear.
Let me give a very topical example. Frontline just now exposed the Dept of Justice’s incompetence, and Lanny Breuer has within 24 hours resigned as a result. That is good investigative news. Why has it taken so long. Where have all the news organisations been for the last 5+ years?
Wikileaks is pursuing the same style of ‘exposing the lies’ strategy that Frontline has just been so successful with. BUT, the current stenographers, like the New York Times, are so corrupted that they have abandoned Wikileaks, even after thousands of headlines based on Wikileaks revelations, and are saying, Wikileaks is not a media organisation, and therefore, the news they gather and release is actually more espionage than fearless reporting.
The DoJ loves this as it means they can hang Assange and in so doing make sure these other gutless media organisations are suitably chastised, see what could happen to them if they want to be more than stenographers (wonder what Frontlines fate will be?), and the Government can therefore continue their lieing cheating ways.
Will the DoJ and Obama Government succeed in keeping the Media in check?
Who knows, but what is certain is that people like Gibney who produce shit like, “We Steal Secrets” are propagandists who make Joseph Goebbells, Hitler’s Propagandist, look like an amateur.
Movies like Zero Dark Thirty and now this We Steal Secrets are brilliant at deceiving, but track down and watch a copy of “The Lives of Others” and you will see where we are headed.
Sorry for the lengthy reply to your simple question but soliciting information is not illegal for media organisations so we should all recognise the question is an attempt by the Government at reframing a valid activity of every news organisation to make it appear like espionage. It is not.
Crush the media and the citizens are blind to what the Government does.
Make Wikileaks’ communications with Manning about a foreigner (Assange) corrupting a citizen and you have espionage, make it about a news organisation looking for dirt on Government wrong-doing and you have a story that we all need to hear.
Which do you think the Government is characterising this communication as?
And now that I’ve got that off my chest I’d just like to calmly summarise it all by repeating John Young’s quote from above, ” … Gibney was a double-crossing son of a bitch”.
I didn’t know about either of these movies 24 hours ago. I find their existence troubling.
Your comment is correct. You have essentially described fascism. Where the press is compromised and the first amendment is eviscerated in the name of national security? The truth is the government is engaging in obstruction of justice. Trying to Isilence the truth as to war crimes and abuses of power, committed in Americas name.
Frontline simply stated what many Americans already know. The republic has been defrauded by Wall Street, and rather than holding Wall Street criminals accountable, the DOJ goes after CIA agents exposing torture, American citizens, having the balls to expose the rancid realities of Americas foreign policy and war crimes, as Woodward and Bernstein exposed the abuse of power of an American President.
The entire scenario is an insult to the nation and the sacrifices made by Americans who fought the nazi bastards, only to see the republic act in a manner similar to that which they fought and died for, to keep America safe from fascists?
Thanks to you, I now have a sound byte regarding our corrupt gumment: The U.S. government’s main job is Obstruction of Justice, benefiting the elite and screwing The People. Everywhere I turn, my peers are expected to hand over money for every little thing (and rents, groceries and gas aren’t getting any cheaper), yet keep their mouths shut (pepperspray and billy clubs and accusations of rape and espionage await), while some fat cats and their whores on Capital Hill sit idle and collect.
There’s a lot of money to be made indoctrinating Umyhrikens with myths about their about their victimization and revenge fantasies praising the “necessary evil” of the Praetorian Guard (Argo and ZDT). Hollywood has signaled their allegiance to this mindset with the full-throated embrace of Barry the Fascist in the last corporate spectacle posing as an election with “choices”.
Kevin, thanks for writing this.
I found this interview strange from the start. The title of Gibney’s documentary, “We Steal Secrets”, implies that Wikileaks is a thief rather than a journalist. And Gibney’s justification for using this title is that Michael Hayden said this about his US government activity – so what is the connection to Wikileaks?
Gibney then says that he made “Secrets” because Universal Studios contacted him. Strange that Comcast/NBC/GE is interested in making this little film.
Gibney immediately launches into his opinion that Julian Assange is untruthful because of his refusal to return to Sweden for questioning concerning allegations of rape. Gibney seems unconcerned with all the holes in the timeline involving this incident and apparently did not make this timeline part of the film.
I listened to this interview on a podcast and I felt that Gibney was nervous, used a lot of guarded language (I think, supposedly, you know), uninformed about the topic and unable to make a coherent argument for his conclusions.
Gibney did point out that the US classifies way too much government information. Although, he could have pointed out that the 250,000 documents Wikileaks published is a drop in the bucket compared to the 90 million documents classified each year in the US and that these Wikileaks documents were left virtually unprotected by the US.
The Guardian review of “Secrets” says that you will learn nothing about Assange in this film (they even mistakenly assumed Gibney interviewed Assange).
Judging from this interview, an unskeptical viewer of “Secrets” would probably take away that Assange is an unpatriotic and untruthful, thief. It’s just a coincidence that’s what the elite want us to think.
This appeared in the Guardian today or yesterday:
Julian Assange doesn’t like the movie that is being made about Wikileaks, called The Fifth Estate.
…
Assange, who will be portrayed in the film by Benedict Cumberbatch, read from a copy of the script as he accused the movie’s maker, Dreamworks, of “fanning the flames” of war against Iran.