Charlie Rose

TruthbeTold  07/06/2011 11:05 AM Report

Last night I saw the PBS documentary and no one can say that is "obviously an attempt at persecuting Assange"...except maybe Assange himself, and from what I got from the documentary I don't think we would feel that way. I certainly didn't get that impression from the piece.

Assange has the "freedom" to publish anything he wants. He actually mentions it (that is -or was- in his power). For Wikileaks there are only facts (be it truth or not) and Assanged had the power to decide how many of the documents could be published and how many were too risky (that is a fact I could capture from his own words).

In my opinion, as a first viewer of this documentary last night, it motivates people like me to explore the issue and try to understand the many factors involved in the Wikileaks "affair".

Can I say it's biased? I don't think so. I can see a person like Assange trying to fit into this world by becoming an important part in the History books. He might have an ego that is larger than life, but if the world had an organization like his during Hitler's time he would had been the hero, and not the mad man. Should we think of him in the same manner today? This is what a documentary like this one has moved me to analyze. And for the record all that the Time magazine reports and the likes forced me to conclude was that he(Assange) was the mad man.

There is never an absolute truth in any affair, only perceptions of what it could be; but transparency in the affairs of the world should continue forever.

Nice job Charlie and great work Frontline.

REMant  05/26/2011 11:21 AM Report

I watched this last night and posted the following comment several times with different browsers, waited overnight and it still not appearing, am posting it here. It is not unlike at least half of the comments, so I am at a loss, except to note that the website's video doesn't work with either the latest Opera or Firefox browsers, and I had to use an older IE. But I think the comment box and Disqus login were fine, so conclude I've been censored. You can decide for yourselves:

"This is obviously an attempt at persecuting Assange, for what reason I have no idea. It is not in Frontline's character as investigative journalists, themselves. They point out that Manning asserts he "had a relationship" with Assange, which seems clearly bluster. They accuse Assange of releasing documents after Manning's arrest, but he maintains they did not actually know they were his leaks, since Wikileaks doesn't allow itself to know the source of its submission. The hacker community, with which Assange is implicated by association, is shown as angry with one of their own for turning him in, but it appears that if not he, it would have been someone else Manning corresponded with. The liberal press is shown as angry with Assange for not redacting the names of informants. The release of diplomatic data is charged with instigating the overthrow of Arab regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, etc. Last, Assange is accused by a colleague of being imperious. Against this, in an apparent attempt at impartiality, a coda relates apparent govt attempts to retaliate against both Manning and Assange. But none of this absolves those in authority from the fact that Manning should never been in the Army, or in that position in the first place, that the military should not have been shooting reporters, or the State Dept bad-mouthing allies. Or that Frontline, 60 Mins and the NYT would not have loved to have broken some of this information."

robdverity  05/25/2011 07:56 PM Report

Has anyone of the responsible hierarchy ask why a private (of such psyche) had access to such info. Just maybe they deserve what they got. It's the old saw:

"If you did what you did, you deserve what you got."

REMant  05/24/2011 11:18 AM Report

Manning, I think speaks to the incredibly inept personnel policies of the military, and the Fed'l govt generally, as much as security. Wikileaks, however, is no more than a 60 Mins for our time.