FILM: WE (DON'T) STEAL SECRETS: THE "STORY" OF WIKILEAKS.
There will be more considered films, made about Bradley Manning & (no doubt) Wikileaks, than "WE STEAL SECRETS": THE STORY OF WIKILEAKS.
We absolutely refuse to repeat the lie (STEAL) without the comment, (DON'T) added to make it clear no-one stole anything, in our own title relating to the film.
The so called "leaks" were legal disclosures surrounding war crimes and other serious criminal acts by governments.
On "balance", the at best, opportunistic American producer Gibney's film "WE STEAL SECRETS: THE STORY OF WIKILEAKS" comes across as just another establishment propaganda piece that deliberately does not explore very important issues sensibly, in any depth.
That is entirely the fault of the producer (and his own ego).
The real issues are avoided through the film deliberately wasting much time airing personal grievances, that amount to nothing more than generalised characted assassinations of the two ordinary people, who found themselves in an extraordinary situation.
In that sense, the so called "producer" is more guilty of any insenstivity, of which Julian Assange is accused.
Merely through the choice of title, which actually includes the statement, "STEAL", reveals the soundbite, the producer wants people to remember, at the time Bradley Manning stands trial.
The slant of Gibney's "story" telling in repeating many of the lies the state do, precisely in the same disingenuous manner the state do, therefore becomes, in many respects, even more dishonest than the show trial Bradley Manning is currently enduring.
The worn out argument of producers must present balance does not even begin to wash, in what the people know is a less than level playing field.
The producer wants to drown out the unavoidable fact that people will remember that Bradly Manning cares, by muddying waters with the lie, that secrets (of war crimes) were ultimately "stolen".
What Bradley Manning provided were legal disclosures of criminal acts.
What I will remember is this:
The wars of aggression are illegal.
Government exploit our young people and Bradley Manning was exploited by both the political and military establishment.
Bradley Manning originally complained to his superior officer that Iraqis lawfully campaigning against wrongdoing were disgracefully being arrested and horrifically abused with the involvement of U.S forces.
Not only did his superior officer tell him to shut up, it was "policy" that escalated.
It was this experience that confirmed to Manning, that he must do something.
Bradley Manning tried to go to the media and they did not want to know.
Bradley Manning did all the right things to try and stop what he knew was wrong, happening.
Bradley Manning does not have proper legal representation and his plight as a political prisoner will become more widely fought than that of Nelson Mandela.
Julian Assange went touting for leaks.
A leak like this has never happened (the so called Prism is completely different) , so I don't think a single one of us, can use hindsight to criticize Wikileaks.
In all the unusual circumstances, Assange did the best he could.
What other group of ordinary people, were trying to do what Wikileaks were, in the manner they were ?
No-one could have expected to be handed the information Wikileaks was given.
Despite that fact, it is clearly seen that Assange himself was used, manipulated and exploited, yet ultimately he and others did make sure that the information was put out into the public domain, in a manner that ultimately could only be seen to best help Bradley Manning and the people.
Obviously other members of Wikileaks helped Julian Assange.
In fact Wikileaks as a whole group knew what they were doing, in exposing information, was correct.
Wikileaks touched a massive nerve in Iceland that led to people having the opportunity to stand up and try to make a real difference.
The reality is people may have to try all manner of things to change anything.
The authorities would not have been best pleased, about Icleland, but unknown to Wikileaks their biggest challenge was still ahead of them.
The argument that some of Mannings information should have been redacted to protect lives, does not invite blame that can really be attached to either Manning or Assange.
The business states should not have been engaged in the illegal wars of aggression, where millions of innocent lives have been lost, in the first place, and when invited with all their resources to suggest redactions, the U.S chose not to offer suggestions.
It is the business states who do not really care about any human life.
The producer, like the authorities, also exploits naivete by airing various grievances against Assange, that primarily arose subsequently with the obvious conflict that an inevitable sex scandal, would cause.
And ultimately I don't think any caring person is going to miss in the slightest, a self serving celebrity groupie like Jemima Khan who rather like her brother, only jumps on board to pontificate, in the lamestream media, from a position of luxury.
The two biggest lessons seem to be that when it comes to illegal wars:
a) the internet is very good for exposing many lies
b) it is very difficult to protect someone who leaks
Those are the realities that ordinary people face with the business states who really do not care about any human life.
We are led to believe that an isolated Manning, ultimately dropped himself in it.
In reality our system failed him, and so many others who have suffered and - died - in what we all know are illegal wars of aggression.
Yet the totality of the evidence within the leaks, for which full credit goes to Manning, shows beyond what we saw with Abu Ghraib, into the true mindset of our horrible leaders and our horrible system.
Manning did the people, a huge public service.
You bet the Guardian went looking for Assange.
Just like, the BBC managed the whole Dr Kelly leak.
The Dr Kelly leak, remains the most significant leak - because - had he lived, his leak, could have changed not only the war, but - it had the potential to break - the system - that leads to illegal wars.
The business state simply could not work out the dynamics of how, if Dr Kelly lived, they could sweep under the carpet the stratospheric legal implications arising from Dr Kelly's information, at that time, whereas with Bradley Manning they are just able to hide him away and prosecute him over "secrets".
People do notice that in all this, the Guardian are just another lamestream media outlet, who are neither prosecuted, nor holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy.
That is an issue, the Guardian are not keen to explore on their front pages.
In fact, the front pages of the Guardian have tellingly moved right on from Bradley Manning, while he is on trial, and therefore the inevitable questions of the legality of wars, to their very badly managed Prism "leak".
Ironically a Wikileak tells us why.
Just like the CIA said, to the governments of France & Germany, the old boys club don't like what is the - unpredictable - nature of "public opinion".
What will the people do, at any given time ?
Many people do understand that the lamestream media of all shades, are in the same old boys club as are the politicians of all shades. If any speak at all, they only do so within the parameters of their own agenda, and those parameters do not involve giving a shit about what happens to the people.
The Guardian did the Bradley Manning Story - only - because it would look a bit odd, being done by Murdoch. The lamestream media merely fill a place in a cheap and shallow marketplace that invites opinion, not law, over of all things....human life..in war.
The Guardian do not want to see the legality of war justiciable in UK Courts, precisely because Manning, in leaking, was upholding...law, and the lamestream media are no more in the business of upholding law, than our politicians.
However, Prism has shown that despite the fact, we are told business interests can trawl the internet all they like, so they know everything (including presumably where Edward Snowden is ?) they have not yet created the program that fully controls a) what we really think b)sharing what we really think.
They can never really fully succeed in making a catch all crime, out of thinking.
By contrast the people do not need to search very far on the internet, to confirm, that the global community of people is primarily made up of a very many people who just like Bradley Manning, "care".
The people will continue to find ways to..care... about each other.