WikiLeaks Goes After Gitmo


Pages: 1 2

After a rather long lull in activity, WikiLeaks is back in the headlines again. This time, the target was the United States’ base at Guantanamo Bay, with WikiLeaks releasing almost 800 classified military documents relating to the detainees who have been held at Gitmo. If WikiLeaks isn’t – as it claims – consciously trying to aid terrorist organizations, this latest release demonstrates, once again, that Julian Assange and his partners aren’t the benign, disinterested whistle-blowers they would like the world to believe they are. This is an organization that is blatantly anti-American and anti-West in its outlook — and its prejudice shines through every time it releases new information.

WikiLeaks wrestles with the same problem that the mainstream media has: they want the public to believe that they are unbiased sources of factual information, but – being leftists – they don’t trust the public to reach the “correct” conclusions on their own. So, rather than simply disseminating information and allowing people to form their own judgments, WikiLeaks feels obliged to steer readers’ opinions.

By the third sentence on their “Gitmo Files” introductory webpage, WikiLeaks abandons any pretense of impartiality, telling readers that they are about to learn more about “a notorious icon of the Bush administration’s ‘War on Terror’ — the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which opened on January 11, 2002, and remains open under President Obama, despite his promise to close the much-criticized facility within a year of taking office.”

Adjectives like “notorious” and “much-criticized” don’t leave much wiggle room for the reader. But, just in case there is any doubt, WikiLeaks moves on to lead readers further toward forming what is – in its opinion – the right conclusion, declaring that: “Most of these documents reveal accounts of incompetence familiar to those who have studied Guantánamo closely, with innocent men detained by mistake (or because the US was offering substantial bounties to its allies for al-Qaeda or Taliban suspects), and numerous insignificant Taliban conscripts from Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Ainola

    Bias much?

  • g_jochnowitz

    The information about each of the captives in the article supports the idea that Gitmo is necesary. WkiLeaks is showing the opposite of what it thinks it is doing.

  • BS77

    can't believe, after ten freaking years, KSM is still down their eating pizza and ice cream…..what is wrong with this picture??????????????

  • Zah

    You can't downplay the entire file release as "anti-american and radically leftist" by Strawman'ing the opening statement by Wikileaks.
    Okay, so what if the first page or so of the release (an admitted editorial, something that multitudes of journalists do, check your local newspaper) is biased?
    The rest is actual government documents detailing not just acts such as waterboarding etc etc but confirming that there are people being held there for little to no reason, like the Al Jazeera journalist, Sami al-Hajj, who was detained for "Being a suspected terrorist" but whose files show was constantly interrogated about his work with the Arabian News Network (and just that). Hell they wrote it in there that any information he would possibly give on terrorist activities was to be considering unusable since "The likelihood that Sami al-Hajj consorts with terrorist cells is highly unlikely".

    He was also detained for six years without being able to see his lawyer, being told what he was being charged for, and nobody informed his family.

    If you don't consider things like that to be "Un-American" (I didn't know Secret Policing people from halfway across the world to interrogate them about their jobs as news journalists was the Red White and Blue dream) then you don't deserve to claim that you know anything about American values.

    • Jim_C

      Zah, somehow, there will be people who give your posty a "thumbs down." They can't disagree with it, they certainly can't make a rational argument why your post is wrong, because your post is fact-based. All they know is "They don't like it" because it seems to imply something wrong with their pre-conceived notions.

      And they'll go on to pretend to be freedom-loving patriots, which is the opposite of their true nature.