Who Is The Real Julian Assange

been doing a little bit of research on Jillian and a song. I'd actually was looking in the day at weeky leagues before most people had heard of it now it's front-page news. But you know and so I thought this was a great thing and it's Jillian and a song. I thought it was a great man. And then I started hearing things that well it was this information. And he wasn't reporting anything about Israel. So I put videos up mentioning that because I tried to look at all sides of an issue. And I decided to really start looking into this now because I heard weeky leagues as actually put out things about Israel and they do have papers on crimes in Israel. But you don't hear about that much because most of the stuff about weekly skits exposure in the mainstream press and certain things on getting any exposure in the mainstream press. Big surprise there of you know. So the weekly leagues that do refer to Israeli crimes don't get mentioned. The ones that talk about the U.S. crimes those are ones that are getting all the big press. I looked at the guy you know and I looked into charges. Whether or not these charges were legitimate you know of course he's been accused of rape and 99.9% certain this is completely yes. He doesn't look like the type of person that would be a rapist but everything about the charges the way that's been thrown at him it just doesn't make any sense. They put off these charges and then they withdrawn and said there was nothing to him and yet they're still trying to get him extra-dited to Sweden and looking into it a little bit more. The reason they're trying to do that is Britain has got some pretty strong laws against protecting people that are doing the type of thing that you're in the song is doing. And that's why he's there and that's why they're trying to get him extra-dited to Sweden because the laws in Sweden are a little more loose when it comes to that. Want to say again I'm in to Sweden and then they can get them pulled back to the United States and wants to get it back to the United States. I'll probably be the kill him or find some excuse to throw him in prison for 125 years or something. I hate to say it but the United States has gotten to be one of the most criminal countries in the world. Astrid you know I would say well yeah we're not as bad as like some of these third world countries but when you look into it most of these third real countries are the way they are because of the CIA and in stuff is put you know sadistic dictators and puppet leaders in power in these third world countries and that's why these third world countries are so screwed up. Our claims that a song has been disrespecting 911 truthers. I don't know how credible these are. I know Alex Jones was on this. Just the fact that he's on Alex Jones is enough proof to prove to the credibility of Jolene Sons. I don't trust Alex Jones at all. Alex Jones obviously has people on that show that come up with say all kinds of things and like they said we can leave says the CIA agency but where's the proof? They never he never gives any proof of it. There's a claim that Jolene Sons says that 911 truthers really annoying me. I'm not 100% certain he said that and if he did say it's not kind of a misquote. It could be at the time he said it he didn't believe 911 wasn't inside job. Maybe he hadn't figured that out. If he if he said this it's also but the the simple fact is that we can lead documents that are indicating 911 is an inside job with this. The Wikki files. Questionable actions of the secret service during 911. Hello Interweb. A massive disinformation campaign has come against Wikki leaks in these last several weeks. Mainstream media and even members of the alternative media are being manipulated in two dis informing the public about the importance of a content send information on Wikki leaks. The topic will cover but a small part of the information disclosed about the events of 911 by Wikki leaks. The full documentation spans many thousands of lines. So your help has needed in analyzing the information because the main stream media refuses to address the issue. The log files entangled 911 messages hosted on Wikki leaks is a transcript including timestamps IP addresses, phone numbers, names email addresses and large fragments of conversation over digital telecommunications networks. The log files spans the entire 48 hours, between September 11, 2001 and September 12, 2001, capturing all an encode at digital communication sent in our USA. Through analysis the messages can be pieced together to form full conversations and some can even be pieced together to find the emails and names of those who send the messages. Upon preliminary analysis a couple of communication lines have been identified of those used by the Secret Service. The messages revealed that members of the Secret Services were ordered to not enter NYC. And agents embedded in the city were led through several meeting points at one point they were ordered to evacuate's Tivers in high school, in the words of command by any means necessary. Towards the end of the day the Secret Service was ordered to meet had Chelsea pierced to board a ferry to depart NYC. This just in itself raises several questions. Firstly what were essence agents doing in New York and why weren't they ever made aware of their being a terror is threat? Secondly why were they ordered to leave the city instead of staying planted to investigate? Thirdly who or what was attached to Tivers in high school, whom were so important had to be evacuated by any means necessary. Why were essence agents ordered to stay home on September 12th? And lastly what was the purpose of boarding a ferry where was its destination and to exactly other than the SS were unbored? This is only a tiny fraction of a large amount of relevant and secretive information contained in the documents. The state can be correlated to many of the facts of the 9 or 11 cover, up we have already discovered. By using the state a minute by minute-vanilizes of the events of the day and a tale including communications between important players on the subject can easily be created. Thus we will finally have a full and detailed picture of the true events of September 11 along with the evidence to take those responsible to court for a long overdue prosecution. Due to the complexity of the data including many time stamps, unconventional terminologies and computer codes, we will need people of technical inclination to fully analyze the meaning of aspects of the data to piece it together precisely. Please also be warned as agents such as Wayne Madsen have been given a gem to manipulate the 9 or 11 truth movement against WikiLeaks. This has been done with complete lies and misinformation. His goal is to keep the truthers away from the information which could finally, absolutely, without doubt, prove the conspiracy behind the events of that day. Please remember his former employer is one of those responsible for 9 or 11 and possibly him as well. Please support freedom of speech and those who stand on its side. At this climax point it will be individuals who make the difference not the systems we've come to depend on which have only been used to abuse and disinform us. In this new world it has yet to be decided who the leaders will be. Rechan powerful executives, aristocracies and fascist factions have been intending to make the new world their own personal playground. It's time to demonstrate to them that it is in fact as the people who will inherit the new world and that we are not going to let them up anymore. Please join the cause. We are already over 9,000. Please feel free to read a tribute to this video by any means necessary. The previous video has been an unpaid public service announcement brought to you by anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. The fact is there's so many documents that WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks is uncovered that they don't have the manpower to look at them all. It's very probable there are many documents that WikiLeaks has that proof basically beyond a shot over 9,11 was an inside job. Julian and Sons and most of the staff haven't had a chance to look at these documents. They asked for the public's help and I'm asking for your help here. They just mentioned it's given the information and get on the we all need to get on WikiLeaks and start sifting through the start of it. Nobody seems to want to do it. It's getting back to what I get annoyed with. The sheep will don't want to do anything they want to fight back. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to give some stuff out on Julian and Sons. Here's the first one where I'm going to see an end. Let's try to rip on him and try to bring up the staff notice. The reporter they had trying to grill him on the rape charges and he just got disgusted and walked off. She's such an immature inexperienced reporter. You can tell. I think obviously CNN is since it's in the United States under a lot of pressure to try to go after a song but they couldn't find any decent reporter. Here's this young girl. Obviously she wanted to open a serious buttocks so she can go up in the ladder but she did a pretty, she's just a terrible. She's not a very good, she was a very young inexperienced reporter. Been in Toronto to speak with in with unique several people have volunteers of quit. Where do you get your sources from? Former staffers from? And did you speak to them? Which ones? Well I'm not going to say which ones but people have said that they quit. Because the design design the one former staffer who was suspended. He as far as I know has spoken to anyone. Well that former staffer, Daniel, Don't say it, Bird. Has done an interview with CNN saying that he was suspended and not quit. And he cited a lot of the things. Personality issue that your personality seems to be eclipsing. All that they said in the work of week late. One thing that there's a, this is, I mean this is just not a very interesting issue. Where an organization, an organization has employees and where employees must be he thinks it's suspended and that was the case of a Domestide Schmidt. And some employees when they get suspended are not happy about this adventure. But this criticism that the story around you is eclipsing the work of week late. Does that concern you? Would you consider stepping aside? This organization does not let anyone hang out to drive. We always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod to attract, to attract the attacks against the organization for our work. And that is a difficult role on the other hand. I also get undue credit. So that's my function in this organization. And anyone involved in our sort of activity can be expected to be attacked across the full spectrum, whether it's sort of direct to fabrications or poisoners room or monitoring by the top-wide press. Anyway, that is something that we as an organization cannot be distracted by. We have to move on and do the work that we are committed to do. You mentioned you sort of describe yourself as a lightning rod. One aspect of that has been the legal situation for yourself and Sweden. You're not facing charge. I'm not going to talk about that in the evaluation to this. But it does affect wickedness. Yeah, but this interview is about something else. I want to walk if you are. If you're going to contaminate it is extremely serious interview with questions about my personal life. Well, no, I'm not. But what I want to ask is at one point you said it was a dirty tricks campaign. I'm going to walk if you're going to. So you don't want to address whether or not you feel this isn't a topic. It's completely disgusting, it's a bit of a question. I'm asking whether or not you're going to walk if you're going to contaminate. I'll review in the deaths, 104,000 people of the taxi deaths by person. Now, a song might look kind of like a little bit of a jerk there. The questions in the way she was asking are more to say to him about any new that and he wasn't going to put up with it. When reporters ask him about these same things, but they do it in a respectful way with that, trying to set him up. He answers these questions. He doesn't walk off. And, you know, here's a little example of that. One of these rape charges a little bit more on going on this. It's not a purely American moment. It's interlinked across the Western world. And there's a sort of, which even though you're the subject of this, you see the humor if that's the right word in it. But I mean, obviously you've got this situation that you're coming up with all this material that's revealing things about people that they would prefer not to be published. And then you get absolutely none but in the middle of the situation where in reverse that's what's happening to you in Sweden. And you don't want all this stuff published in Sweden about the alleged rape, which was then withdrawn as a rape and talking about sexual advances and so on. But I mean, it's ironic in a way that it's you getting it, someone putting it back to you. Or is it not really? It's not ironic. It's actually much deeper and dangerous than that. We're an organization that a little organization that helps individual people inside the abusive organization exposed the abuse by some powerful group. What has happened to me is that a powerful organization at least this Swedish police prosecution service may be Swedish intelligence, we don't know precisely what the interference is with this case. Has, breached their stated internal obligations, breached the law to first pump out my name and just recently in the last few days, to selectively take bits of the court of the police investigative file. The most prejudicial bits they could find and pump this out to the guardian newspaper, just before my court hearing, pump it out to the moment, pump it out to the New York Times. Why? Who's doing that? That's a dirty trick. That's a clever trick. They've a few dirty tricks. Some of those jones were, well, the allies of yours a few days ago and you were feeding them stuff. They're guarding themselves. They're new times. That's not true. It's where we have a business arrangement. But the particular journalist, you know, got into big place. There has lots of jones. The particular journalist that they picked, has a public record because there's some ridiculous dispute we had about an embargo arrangement. It's publicly said that he is personally opposed to me. And in fact, refused to work on cablegate. The biggest journalist's story in the past 10 years. Here is the one that was picked to look under that information through. Someone they knew would write in the negative way. Who would do that? Who had access to that material? Who was sophisticated enough to send it out to our media partners, to the particular journalist that they knew would write in the negative way? And the answer to your answer to that question? I don't know. You can see who benefits, who might have the ability to do it. Clearly someone connected. It's some stage to the government in Sweden. Maybe something was stolen from the government in Sweden. Who would have the capacities to steal something from the government in Sweden? Why would the government of Sweden obviously care about this? Well, it's not whenever we talk about a government, we're actually talking about individuals. Yeah, we're talking about lots of people's individuals in government. We work in particular sectors. We have friends, family, and so on. In Sweden, we two weeks ago had the front page with cable-grade material and every major newspaper, in Sweden. The biggest newspaper often was SVT. So SVT, we then had a 44 minute documentary on Swedish television, equivalent to the BBC. Showing how what the US ambassador was writing about Sweden. And what he was writing, Sweden is really in return. We pretend that it's not, but it really is. He was writing that there is intelligent sharing arrangements of all types. And we have to keep it secret from Parliament, not even most members of the government. Know what's going on. It is arguably a violation of the Swedish constitution. So we're going to keep it real quiet. We saw the opposition leader in the recent election being hauled in to the US embassy. Why? Because she had made statements saying that when we get elected, we're going to take Swedish troops out of Afghanistan. She came in and she said, don't worry about that. That's just all for the people. Once we're in government, we're not going to do that. That opposition leader, here to the social democrats. Social democrats is the same political party that Kaya's foregstrom is from Kaya's foregstrom. He's a politician who ran into our selection. He's also the principal public advocate for the two women who are alleging these crimes. And then obviously you've denied crimes in that case vigorously, obviously in the so on. But you've been denied having had sex with him. And I talk about things about this matter of public record. But I think it's not right for me to do a couple of things. And it's hard because it's a different cultural values. But my cultural values are, is that a man does not talk about his private life. And a man does not criticize women. Certainly he doesn't criticize women before he knows all the facts are in. In this case, we have just recently got a translation of part of one of the statements by a close friend of one of the women. And she says that she, I want to be women, told her that she was banned, boozelled by police and other people into this position and she's very unhappy about it. So maybe it's not actually all the skin from the women. Although there is some suggestive evidence for that history. But maybe it's not maybe they are innocent victims who were banned, booze or been to making statements that they didn't really want to make. So why wouldn't you have that just waiting in the sense, does it mean you feel which would be a clear point? I mean, do you feel that you can't get a fair trial in Sweden? At the moment. It's very interesting to us at that point because this was a point made by the prosecution here who applied to make sure as an solitary confidant that I was denied bail. Then when bail was granted, rightly so, appealed all the way to the high court to prevent me to being out on bail. And one of the arguments used was that they thought that I would not, that I thought I would not get a fair trial in Sweden. So if I say that I believe I'm not going to get a fair trial in Sweden, that there's no jury's in Sweden, that half the jury's are appointed by the social democrats that's how, so not jury's half the panel of judges is appointed by the political party that is involved with this. If I say that's sort of thing, suggest that I don't have confidence in the Swedish judicial system, then my bail will be cancelled and I will go to prison. So I have to look into the situation as to whether there is a fair trial possibility in Sweden or not, that is something that we are researching, that is something I want to understand before I'm exudated back to Sweden. What I want to understand is what the charges, who is behind it, the prosecution has refused to give to the British courts any evidence has said that it doesn't need and doesn't want to give any evidence. And by evidence, they don't mean photographs or something like this. By evidence, I mean even the statements, even the initial complaint, it's refusing to handle it. That's not a situation that I feel that it is right to walk into it. I feel it is right, but since I haven't even been charged, since we are offering to do all sorts of interviews for them to come here and say, well, I want to talk to you about what exactly. That should happen first and we have an opportunity in the British legal system, which is more open to get some of this information out. The find out what this is really about and demonstrate publicly, that something is not going on here that is right, that there are clear dirty tricks, at least in the abuse of process, how did my name get out in the first place? Why did the most senior prosecutor in Sweden say not only that there was no evidence, she said, I've read everything, there is not even a suspicion that he has committed a rape. Then, intervention of this politician, Clay Sporks, from comes about, passed off to another prosecutor in Gothenburg, not in Stockholm. What is going on? That's the question that you most of all, but everybody will be interested in that. Well, anyway, I had put out this vicinity here, gives you a lot insight into what kind of what this guy is like and when he's about. And after listening to him talk, I'm quite convinced this guy is sincere. I don't think he's working for Israel, he seems to be fair. And if you listen to him and you look into what he's doing, it seems like, you know, he the guy is what he's doing, he's trying to make this world a better place, which is kind of what I'm trying to do. So, here's the interview. You've described WikiLeaks as untraceable and unsensurable. What do you mean by that? Well, nothing in this world is guaranteed for sure. But within that, we have put together an infrastructure using technical and legal techniques to really make it hard to trace people and make it hard to take down our material once it's published. And today, we've had 100% success rate. But that basic idea and intention is comprised of a number of specific ways of doing it. So for untraceability, this means people send us material in the post in a particular way, engaging in particular procedures, which makes it effectively impossible to trace. Or it means they submit material to us online and bounce information through dozens of computers around the world, each computer encrypting its transmissions before connects to another computer. So in this way, discarding identities as the information flows around the world. As it flows through different countries, we make sure it flows through Sweden and Belgium. And these two countries have specific source protection laws in Sweden as part of the Swedish constitution to press for you to act. And in Belgium, a specific law dealing with the communications protections between the source and the journals using any means whatsoever, including electronic transmissions. For publication, this means housing ourselves in many different jurisdictions such that any sort of interim attack on us, interim injunction is not going to take the information down entirely. It may not get out here, it may not get out there. But we can put up servers and gain support and respond legally fast enough, such that the information is not going to be removed from the public. And that has been what has happened today. We've never lost the court case in any jurisdiction. Important thing to remember, but they have been interim attempts to injunters. And why does interim attempts have gone on? We have managed to keep publishing. How many documents of real value have you been able to accept and publish? Well, it's hard to know how many real value of the indices in the eyes of the pollder. To us, all information that is true has value eventually. There may not be a very small value to someone somewhere. But getting that information into the historical record, patting out the historical record, provides a richness to every other bit of information in the historical record. So if you're talking about things which have clearly changed our comes elections or clearly introduce some more reform or clearly but perpetrators to trial, then this is in hundreds, some somewhere in the hundreds, for the clearly changing governments or elections or having ministers to post, this is maybe half a dozen to 10 something like that. That's the power of information that's an old tourism isn't it? And this is such a modern ultra-modern form of getting it out. It must frighten a lot of establishments and authority and especially governments. What governments have been successful in blocking it? In blocking the working leagues, the governments that have clearly tried to interfere with re-easability to look at what we publish and leaders ability to give us stuff. China is the worst event. China has the most aggressive sophisticated interception technology that places itself in between every reader inside China and every information outside China. And we've been fighting a running battle to make sure information can get through. So there's also a ways that Chinese readers can read outside but the first thing that they tried doesn't work. The first thing you would imagine doing just go to WikiLeaks.org, that doesn't work. But variations on that do work. Iran has blocked us as well for a period of whether we are now unblocked in Iran. The Australian government has added us to the least of secret internet sites that are to be blocked. Once a national sort of filtering system is put into place, that national filtering system has not yet been put into place. But if it is will be unpoliced. That's the only Western government, doesn't it? There's also Germany has done a similar thing to Australia in a similar position where they're trying to get up the national sense of system. It looks like it's not going to pass constitutionally. It looks like it might get up. But something important to understand is what happens in the West is privatized and that means that big corporations go through the court system to get injunctions and use the coercive power of the state by the ability to deploy armed police to force the court or they use the court apparatus to do that. There's other other ways since the ship is in the West's economic approaches and so on. But to give a specific example, a private bank, it deals with wealthy private clients, minimum account balance of 1 million bucks. Hide their assets around the world to make sure credit is x, y, police, tax balance, I don't get them. We revealed the trust structures in the Cayman Islands, the beneficiaries who set up the trust, how much money was in it and so on. And they attacked us in the United States in the courts. So it's a Swiss Cayman operation using US federal law to try and attack us. They attacked the main registration URL that people familiar with, which he looks to the org, because one of the companies involved in registering that was based in California and through the interim injunction, they did take that down for 10 days. Now of course, we were still publishing on all our other, your rail still publishing successfully out of Sweden. But the thing that people were most familiar with was no longer available and we then responded with a coalition of 20 lawyers and managed to turn that around. So quite an interesting result. It's not that the US justice system brings justice. It's not that the US justice system is always unjust. But you have to bring justice to the US justice system. And if you have a big enough coalition with enough money, you can force a good, good verdict out of it. But the initial verdict by the same judge was that we would be shut down. It's interesting you mentioned just as there because I was going to ask you where the idea of where he leaks came from. But I mean having the sense I get from you is that you've been using the technology to mine this information, especially within authority for quite a long time. But there's really something, there's another element to it. There is an element of just a seeking about WikiLeaks. It seems to me almost a moral element. I won't go as far as saying is a crusade. But there is a passion about it. That's not just simply transparency. There's something else. The goal is justice. The method is transverse. It's important not to confuse the goal and the method. So what I observed by looking at how the press worked and how successful activists can't pay in this very cheap and effective way of getting justice was finding information that people were spending effort on concealing and revealing it. Why do people spend effort on things? Because they believe it's going to benefit them. So when organizations spend effort to conceal something they are making a statement, they're giving off an economic signal that if that information is revealed it's going to have an effect. Otherwise why would you spend the work? So in many of those cases the effect that it will have is a push to reform the organization that is concealing some kind of abuse or some plan for some future abuse. And so they're by selectively going after that information. As opposed to all the other sorts of information out there which they're a vast amount, we are able to selectively bring about just change. The arrival of WikiLeaks coincides with a whole almost a sense of permanent war. The term permanent war, perpetual war, is constantly used now in the United States. We have two wars running together and others and other secret wars. In the information that you have revealed on WikiLeaks about these so-called endless wars, what has been the real high value material that has come out that has given people, ordinary people, if you like, the kind of information upon which they can then act. Looking at the enormous quantity and diversity of these military intelligence apparatus inside the documents, what I see is a vast sprawling estate. The two traditionally called military intelligence complex, or military industrial complex. And that this sprawling industrial estate is growing becoming more more secretive, becoming more more uncontrolled. This is not a sophisticated conspiracy control at the top. This is a vast, move-intensive self-interest. Thousands and thousands of players all working together and against each other to produce an end result, which is a rock and a Afghanistan, come on there and keep that going. What I see is, we often deal with tax havens and people hiding access and transferring money through offshore tax havens. So I see some really quite remarkable similarities. Guantanamo is used for laundering people to an offshore haven, which doesn't follow the rule of law that we would normally expect. Tax haven is used for hiding people's assets, laundering people's assets through the jurisdiction which doesn't follow the rule of law that we would expect in our home countries. Similarly, a rock in Afghanistan, a ankle ambia, a used to wash money out of the US tax base and back arms companies, arms companies, yeah, and the generals and so on, which if you like non-profit versions. So that you can't just or you can't always pull out two billion bucks from the US tax base and just say, hey, let's give it to a large company, straight away with no expectation of doing any work. But if you say this two billion dollars has got to go into Colombia, but the Colombian government has to buy US arms and those arms have to be over particular type, particular specification, that only one of these arms companies has, then that's just the way I'm wondering this back into United States. What you're saying is that money and money making is at the center of modern war and it's almost self-papetuating. Yes, and it's becoming worse. The number of private companies that's sprung up around Iraq, the number of private companies in our supporting the National Security Agency, this has increased a hundred times in the past 10 years, number coming. So now you have a school, a feeding school, with its feeding of the US tax base, and is a lobby to make sure that those wars go on. And you have two sorts of lobbies, get offences hobbies and defensive hobbies. So an offensive lobby tries to get new money that it didn't have before, by lobbying to leave the government. And a defensive lobby makes sure that companies continue to receive the money that they've been getting before. So now we're in a position in United States where we have both enormous offensive lobbies and enormous defensive lobbies. The defensive lobbies always fight harder. They fight to Germany for going, that apparatus has been built up in the past 10 years. I think it's going to be dismantled. What was your reaction when you first saw the Apache video that is now infamous? When I first saw this we didn't know that they were journalists in it. We didn't know who they were. We didn't know the circumstances. We knew this was a tape of a helicopter attack. And otherwise nothing. So I could immediately see that this was a peaceful attack on people walking in the street in a relaxed manner. But I didn't know where they were. They were really the bad guys. They seemed incredibly relaxed. It seemed like this was an attack that was very provocative. If these people were insurgents, then they were insurgents on a having a break playing on the street in a suburb. But as we dug deep from deeper, the situation became more and more appalling. So we found that clearly nearly all of these people went around. Clearly there were two cameramen that hold cameras. Not arms. These cameramen turned out to be the latest news reporters. Then looking at this wounded man crawling on the curb, we could spend more time in detail. There was no arms being picked up. He was just been rescued by a pass of eye. Could you hear the voices? Could you hear the voices from the helicopter at this point? Yeah, we could hear the voices from the helicopter. And the grotesque language that someone has struck me was not this very dark grotesque humour. I can accept that that people exercise black humour, very black humour sometimes in more. Rather it was the another day at the office. Feel to all the proceedings. How routine it was to kill these 18 to 26 people. And the whole street covered with bodies. The reaction to that was nice. This tape from me and the other people involved made nice and dirty words. This couldn't see something has been nice anymore when a whole street covered with carnage. It's nice. The reaction. What did you make of the reaction to it in the media? The mainstream media reaction to the release of this video. We're being involved in obviously many stories that have produced fall out in the United States in our countries. But this one was over degree and of a specific issue. We were able to sort of plot how all this unfold and blew out and what the back reaction was. Initially on the TV networks, there was an attempt to immediately downplay this. For example, seeing in a flip show, they took the first segment which is not the most appalling on the first attack and then blanked out all the shooting. And then said this was out of sympathy or difference to the families. But there's no blood here. You can just see dust coming up. And then immediately started apologizing for the military saying, oh well, it's hard for our soldiers and our reminder that you know, we're more difficult. No condemnation, not even any request for an inquiry which is sort of neutral response. Well, we don't want to blame people before the facts are in. Although actually if you see the video, you've got most of them. But we want to know everything about this. If you want this inquiry to be open, we want to forthcump a full disclosure. We want to know why this video was withheld from Reuters for so long. So we're going to know where the children, the women who compensated, did they live, all these things, which have been a natural reaction. I did not take place in the broadcast networks. Then, for CNN and NBC, there was, I think it's sort of internal revolt by journalists who was seeing other journalists moved down in the streets of Baghdad. So I pushed back against the editorial management management decision to treat it so briefly and incentivize way. So the next day saw a sort of richer discussion. And then it flipped. Then, enormous editorial space, both in the printed press and in TV press opened up the military boarders. And no space opened up for anyone else, including people with new facts, including the soldiers on the ground who would there, the only, you know, speaking witnesses, the only US witnesses in the only soldier's vision. Those people couldn't get into the mainstream press and couldn't get onto TV. Talk about that once the one soldier who his name was McCord, is that right? Yeah. One of the soldiers on the ground who is one of those who see arriving at the van. Ethan McCord, Ethan McCord, is a soldier about 30 years old, was in the ground unit that was been serviced if you like, by the patches in the, and they marched in and arrived where the bodies were in the shooting of the van. And Ethan heard the child crying in the van historically and pulled out the go. Saw the boy and thought the boy was dead. Took the child away from the van to the intermediary location and then went to look for anyone else in the van and just saw the boy just breathing and pulled him out. So he ended up being covered with a blood of his children. And he was quite disturbed by this event and he got in contact with us. Immediately after the video was published and he produced a statement to a letter of apology to this family because he was involved directly with killing, but indirectly, his unit that was being serviced by the sappeting and indirectly, he was part of the US Army in Iraq. But he says that, you know, he complained to his superiors about this event and they just told him to stop being a pussy and just suck it up. And he was tried quite hard to draw attention to what happened in the mainstream to get the mainstream press interested in it within two days of us revealing the material. So why it was still newsworthy? It can't be an excuse in the US press too. Well, the moment had passed and therefore I guess his story is interesting, but the moment has passed because at the very same time that he was trying to get his story across. Editorial space was being given to military apologists who were just wore his heart and stiff people. These things had these things happened. And you didn't show the full context and they were shooting that morning. Yeah. So, and the soldiers, the people soldiers, I can have to go wherever. Not new facts, whereas this soldier had new facts about what had happened then and it immediately after me. I was interesting about him. He also had an overview and he described what had happened that day as a common occurrence. And he talked about if there's any kind of threat or perceived threat to American soldiers, they would let everybody have it. He said let all the motherfuckers have it at 360 degrees. That's right. If there was an ID. He was instructed. If the ID goes off anywhere in the street, then 360 degree rotational fire and just take out everyone. Everyone gets it. I guess as to try and act as a decent incentive for the local population for supporting any ID placement. And that's what happened. Yeah. I mean, it's not that he was told that and it didn't happen. But rather that happened and he was instructed. So he and some other soldiers in this unit, he didn't like that instruction apparently by high when those all were okay, when an ID went off and they were instructed to fire as orders. What what are the leaks around this issue tell you about whether this particular incident was as the government's the US government claims, an aberration or not? We have seen in other leaks. I mean, I just have a vast number of these type of incidents. And when I say these type, what I mean is indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Not deliberate attacks on civilians. It's important to make clear, but just not giving it that. Not caring whether they are or whether they are. Sometimes occasional attack, deliberately attacks on civilians. But those do seem to be rare in the record. But just, maybe they are, maybe they're not, but we want to shoot. And so go for it. Ethan Macaued and one of his fellow soldiers who were in that ground unit, they say that they were surprised that was this video that Lee because there were many many worse incidents and this was a sort of every day in the currents, not every day that journalists are killed. Although I did read the statistics that they have been seven greatest journalists killed in back there and all of them were killed by US military fire. But probably the only reason we are talking about this now is because they were too journalists there and they were sort of trackable and lawyers put in a regular information act request. Whereas if they weren't journalists, if they were just regular, citizens were back to that. We wouldn't even be talking about it. The material just would have been buried. There would be no internal investigation at all, which prompted the eventual leading. So this is a kind of tip of an awful iceberg in many ways. It's not because a war like Iraq and a war like Afghanistan, if not directed at civilians, civilians become the casualties, their civilians wars and what has sent something. There's a old statement that absolutely power crops absolutely. And you can see from this video that when you're in an Apache with a zoom lens that can show you people's face from one mile up in the sky and you have a 30 millimeter cannon and you shoot and there's no effect against you. You can't even hear the screams. When you get back to base, there's no discipline for seas as you can see. The wind has happened every day, the days, you know, pretty year. Of course it's incredibly corrupting. And you know, these people are shot in the same way that every day person walks over ants on the street. They just seem to be irrelevant. They're complaining. There's no discipline for seas. So as the war goes along, civilians do become just something to get rid of. Because they're annoying. Or have no concern over. And why there are some of these civilian massacre cases do achieve prominence and then do find genuine concerns by some of the higher general or by other groups looking into them. That's not what we see for the everyday cases of civilian kills. We have acquired records for six years worth of civilian kills for a rock and Afghanistan. And not just the big ones, where there's 100 people killed or 20 people killed, where there is some investigation of publicity sometimes. But rather this sort of everyday incident is where a man might be as in one case, in Afghanistan, a man is seen to be running away after you are sold as a proge. Who'd him becomes jam? He's running towards the village. So what do they do? It becomes a jam. They get the artillery and they shell him. There's one man they want shells towards him. They'll be treated to village, and they kill a fire girl boy. So there's hundreds and hundreds of those small incidents which sort of reveal the squalor of war or the microscopic detail. It's not always these big kill events. It's a these little events where there's a lack of concern and care about the lethal engagement, the use of lethal force. Another example from Afghanistan is American troops going through an area, not receiving fire, but they see some unexploded coordinates. They see the 1.5 meter shell that's sitting there. There's a dusty area and could it be a village? Possibly. Could be a village? I mean they could just walk past much of they do. They shoot it. They call in their bones as close as a squad. It's what you normally do. They have a taken care of. They call in their strike instead to take out just this one. I'll expose the shell. Now presumably, these are guys in Afghanistan. They're bored. They want to see what their strikes like. They're close. It's very easy. Some daytime. They call in a strike. They strike over shoots. The shell. It's a village. This is sort of just a lack of concern or lack of care. Are these particular incidents from the documents that you've released in July? Yes, that's right. And there's hundreds of wonders like that. Can you just describe the almost the panorama of these documents? They're across Afghanistan. Yeah, around Iraq. So for Afghanistan, this is 91,000 reports by troops on the ground and by some intelligence people back at the base. These are like done just starts and event happens or rough data during the course of the day. So there's a raw data before, before a Pentagon's been talked about about a chance from our side to it. Although that said, sometimes troops don't put things in there that might accumulate their meal. And for Iraq, this is 490,000 reports over the same period. 490,000,000 over the same period of time. That's a hell of a leak. Yeah, that's a really extraordinary thing. This is the most finely detailed history of war that has ever been disclosed. Besides times, locations, kill counts. Although the kill counts are sometimes massaged. But kill counts, people detained. What happened from the US troops point of view? Yeah, they're not reliable in the rate of it, but you can't hide everything when you're producing so much details so quickly. And I mean, it's just extraordinary. We're sorry, the road of computer program to add up all these kill counts. And so for Afghanistan, this is in the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands. It's important to remember, this wasn't just the figure of the hundreds of thousands. This hundreds of thousands is a result of adding up all the individual cases, which are documented. So the individual cases, the highest kill count, is 480 or so related to a stampede that occurred on a bridge. 480 people were killed. And we're checking this in the news reports, seems like it was more like a thousand people were killed. But in the internal US military report, it was 480 people, they were killed. And but that's the single highest event. That's sort of an unusual mix one down was a US sweeping operation that killed about 300. Some of these events are on the surface, disturbing. So the highest kill count event in Afghanistan, killed 181 people in a US operation made by Canada, that called Operation Medusa in December 2006. And that kill count of 181, there was only one wounded. One wounded, one wounded, it says no civilians were killed and they were no captures. So if we then look at what was a sort of military hardware deployed. So it speaks about some ground force, swap and some on a couple of people went through there, but nearly everyone who was killed by an AC-130 gun ship. So this is an AC-130 is a big cargo plane which has been converted to have be decked out with machine guns and tank guns and so saturation fire from a high up. But it's a plane that's moving. This is not exact. And in the course of 3 hours 62 people were described as being killed by this and then there's also an unexplained missing 90 or so people were at there. How they are killed is not a stylish and they're important. They are listed as having been killed in two places. I just they call these all Taliban, the enemy. They're all killed. Looking at that operation reduced to the kill, that broader operation. Quite interesting. I mean I hadn't heard about this before. But this was the biggest according to the Canadian military, the biggest operation in Afghanistan post-indation. And the Afghanistan was one of the people's radar in December 2006. The Rock was. But during that week they say they killed about a thousand Taliban. But actually what happened is that this was in a region about 20k out of Canada where there's lots of vineyards and there was in the government installed by US forces, post-it 2000, one invasion, had become extremely corrupt. And the local people had grown to support the Taliban in sort of knighted effort to clean out this government. And then when US and Canadian and I sat. All right. All right. The western forces came in. These people are not just Taliban. They do seem to have been Taliban there. But the local population was supported. And so the main in the vineyards, the workers in the vineyards, were killed along with these others. And seems to we read the press reports at the time. Some press say it's 50, 50, 50 percent of the people. It's pretty hard to gauge from the on the ground reporting. But we look at events like this, like document shows. And we see something pretty disturbing. A lot of people killed a very little time using indiscriminate fire. No investigation into 181 people being killed. The biggest kill of this single event. You know Afghanistan post-2000 one. It doesn't smell right. It's suppose that those doing the killing, who I'm assuming they regard everybody as a Taliban or as an soldier. Well, the pat, the, the, the, the, who isn't, the pat the pat and we see in Iraq and Afghanistan, the very clear pat and it's not just me who sees this but other war reporters. Is that anyone who's a man is, and dead is an insert. That's how they are always listed on reports. And it's only after there's some investigation, usually stimulated by the press or my competing military reporting on it. That then there's a sort of pull down from that number. Yeah. So, not in any man who was dead is a surgeon of Taliban. Children, if their bodies are holding off to see, and remember things like putting them in a cannon fire will decimate the body. Arlusted as children. So they're not considered as insurgents. And we're making them go either way. And so as an example, if we look at criminals, this is an airstrike that a could in Afghanistan last year, where was called in by the German military. Petal tankers, about three kilometers away from German military positions, had people in a riverbed, and local people were unlighting the petrol from and taking this all. Now, the allegation is that the Taliban hijacked these petal tankers, and we're then giving the petal to local population, which is quite possibly true. Maybe they're trying to carry favour of population, but the reality is there was over 100 people clustered around this tanker taking the petrol. And they weren't going in there, they're sitting there. So airstrike was called in and told most of these people. Yet, when we look at the internal military reporting by the United States, what we see is in these legal ports, 57 insurgents killed. When we look at the internal military reporting for the Coddle murder, the Iraq massacre, which included two more days, journalists have happened in July 2007, what we see is 14 people killed, and they were actually between 18 to 26 people killed. And all of them insurgents, except for two children who were wounded. So even the Reuters camera men were listed as insurgents. And your Reuters came to contact and say, hey, where's the camera? I mean, for you to receive that volume of documentation, suggests that there must be something of a rebellion going on within the system. Yes. I mean, it's the one hopeful thing. Is in fact, there are good people in the US more to it. There are good people in the military intelligence organization. And some of those people have had enough. And so they provide us with evidence of abuse. And I mean, that's, it is sort of another way of being a conscientious objective. In fact, arguably a formal power for it, way of objecting for the civil. And what about among journalists? Is there a rebellion amongst journalists? You said some time ago, I think the journalists need to respect their readers and viewers. How did journalists, by and large, react to WikiLeaks? Of course, some are very impressed, obviously. But you've described, for example, the reaction in the United States with CNN and B.C. and CBS and so on. That's journalists being used to justify it. So how did journalists deal with the arrival of WikiLeaks? Very interesting mixture. So, you know, it seems like all the good journalists support us in all the bad ones don't. But of course, maybe that's just my interpretation, basically. It's probably a good interpretation. But it does seem that the more accomplished and independent the journalists, the more they are likely to support us. The more they are able, in fact, to more establish their as an independent journalists with their own independent reputation that they can choose to take from one newspaper to another. They can choose to take from one network to another. If they're stopped around, it seems like the more they are able to state their support for us. Whereas the journalists who are not in that position of freedom, to the more part of the group or the company, that they're company men, they're more likely to be critical. Because your very WikiLeaks is very threatening to systems. And the B.C. is a system. The network making this documentary, ITV is a system. So individual journalists, as opposed to the organisations that they're working with, are supportive of us in that they may be able to collaborate with us or use our material. And that can be extremely important material. Some people have an ability to see that. And they want to help them. And so you get that material out to a public or bring extra angles in on it or use their existing understanding to help clean down. So they see us as colleagues. And then we have a group that sees us as competition. That sees us as a threat. And in the radio, sort of competitive, new competitive, demanding certain standards. So higher levels of information, harder to get information. And the use of primary sources in material that has been released in print. So that makes them have to work harder. So they see us as a threat. And then there's another group that appreciates what we're doing. Because we're drawing the fire. We are the pre-presband guard. We are the defender of whistleblowers. And we knew that whole field further out. And that creates a sort of a vacuum behind us into which these people can come. Which doesn't have any fire. Because we're attracting the opposition by pushing into it. And that's quite nice. Because over the last four years we have been changing the standard. So there's some degree we are now the state is quite. We are something that exists as an economic and political social need. You're the mainstream. Go quite that far, but there's an understanding of political and economic understanding. But there is a place for, in this world. And that if we were to disappear, that would be something new. That's quite interesting about how you've shifted in. I mean here, the guard in media pages every year, this 100 most important media people. You've probably seen this. This year they've included you. This year 58. But last year we went in there at all. That's quite an improvement. The fact that you're in there is interesting. Very interesting. I mean, it's true we do have some influence. But I think it's also the case that those people in the garden who have put that list together. I'm sure it's totally accurate, but I'm sure that's also a desire for us to be leading in that way. They want to support us. See that we do something beneficial for them. Which is to open up this space. I mean, there's clearly a big shift underway. And we've talked about this already. The shift is from traditional, so-called mainstream journalists, journalism, to what has become known as citizen journalism. Is that a very significant shift now? Is it the whole nature of journalism likely to change because of this trend? It is changing. And the changes will be dramatic. But I'm not one to sell citizen journalism as being at the moment being a great answer yet. And because what I see in the alternative press is very little journalism going on. In fact, what I see is people taking the front page in the old times. Using that is the issue of the day and saying, I don't agree with it, or I do agree with it. And when our idea is that our material would spark tremendous amounts of citizen journalism, because all these people who write opinion pieces on blogs and so on, when given the complaint, why are you doing any real journalism? Why are you going research or investigating something? They say, well, it takes a long time to build up sources. So we don't have anything you should talk about. So we have to just analyze what the mainstream press are doing. But we have produced hundreds of thousands or millions of pages of new source material that these people could analyze and could report and it's extremely rare that they do. So the specific example that I like to use is we got hold of a classified US intelligence report into what happened in the war in Follusion. So this was a left course of it, Bree. That invasion of the town of Follusion in Iraq in 2004, because Iraq itself had already been invaded but Follusion was some kind of holdout to the New Government that had been put in place by the United States, the Coalition of the Regional Authority. And that the circumstances of that invasion, the US contractors going through this area had been killed and anyway, so it's not wanting to go into the detail, but there was a very bloody invasion and it ended up with a pullout. And a reinvasion some five months later. So what was the circumstances? Everyone knew that all sorts of tragedy had occurred in that town. This report in fact revealed for how things progressed, militarily, how things progressed politically, the spokes specifically about Paul Bremmer, who was the head of the Coalition, the original authority, the role of our GZR in that town of the media war, as well as the Underground War, a different tribal regions classified secret via the US Army Ground Intelligence. So we took this classified US intelligence report about Mujer and released it. So all citizens journalists, academics, employed journalists, would analyze it, write about it, call up the US military, ask them about it, ask the countries involved, given rights groups, what was going on in the culture. This was the raw, primary ingredient that you needed to actually do some journalism. And mail this out to the 3,500 people on our mailing list. And the result was not a single citizen journalist did anything. The first person to publish was the French or an orderment at UBI, who was National Security Report. And then another five professional press journalists, not all of them full time journalists, some working for the age of times, half time working for the care institute, half time as an example of one of these five. The bloggers, the political activists of all kinds, in fact, didn't do anything with this material. So I mean that's interesting. So real information or can almost paralyze as if they don't know what to do with it. Well, at over time we are seeing that we sort of training people up a bit. But it's getting better at the time. People are fine to become used to this military information and on the creature, understanding that when we release it is definitely true. But yeah, it's a very surprising effect. I mean, that remote, as an example, it looked good. It wasn't just that it had the important details. It wasn't too long. It was only six years of pages. It was accessible. It had a nice map of pollution on the front, it's clear into tribal areas. And no one picked it up. No one picked it up. And eventually, the professional press picked it up. You're making some very serious enemies. Not least of all, a government engaged in two repatious wars. How do you deal with what must be a sense of that danger? Do you ignore it or do you accommodate it within yourself? So, not at all. I think a lot of people say, we're very courageous in our work. I wouldn't reject that label entirely. We're not uncharagers. But to me, courage is not absence of fear at all. Courage is the intellectual mastery of fear of our understanding. So, we just understand what the risks are and having understood them, right? It was navigate the path through them. One of my good friends who's a reporter for the standard newspaper in Kenya. In investigative head, whenever he is about to publish a big story, exposing a changing government, and they were ready, the newspaper was ready to buy the police government years ago. He published us and he goes to Tanzania. He waits to see what happens. Eventually he becomes clear what's going to happen and he comes back. If he doesn't understand it, he understands the risks, can he see that it's relatively over-risk than he publishes any states in their work. And so that's how we work. What do you do because your public thought unlikely to go through the United States at the moment? Well, in July of 2010, I had three speaking engagements in the United States, including one of the investigative reporters and editors' conference in Las Vegas. A panel there with Scott Brisen, New York Times, in the United States, in the United States, in the Pentagon recently, I asked the Assistant to find out what's happening in the United States. In the Pentagon recently, I asked the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Brian Whitman. I said, can you, as a senior official of the United States government, can you give a guarantee that the editors of WikiLeaks and the editor in chief himself, who is not American, that you are not in danger, that they themselves will not be subjected to the kind of hunt that we've read about in the media. And his reply to nutshell, well, first of all, it's not my position to give guarantees on anything. I mean, how do you feel about that? More sounds like keeping all options on the table to me. They're not good options, are they? I don't want to dramatize this too much, but you're in a sort of unique position in a way. Aren't you? I don't know. We're in a week, he leaks before. There hasn't, and there don't know how to deal with us. There's no, I mean, something that has preserved us is that there's no in the United States or in any other country. There is no department to deal with WikiLeaks. Yeah. Most of those government departments are split up into regional focuses. So there's no sort of specialists in dealing with what we are, or understanding what we are, or understanding how to deal with it. But I mean, a serious statement's coming out of the US administration under the surface that implied that they would not follow the rule of law. They would not follow the plan that they would not follow the rule. For a note, that is a serious matter. It's a certain record there. Yeah. And there were senior figures like, so I heard giving me warnings. A famous US National Security Reporter. And so we're going to be listened to those warnings and talk appropriate security precautions. That said, I think our political position in countries like United Kingdom, Australia, Iceland, Germany, and other countries with less strength is such that it is impossible to, I mean, arrest me here and I think politically, it is just not possible to do that. Why some intermediary bureaucrat might do it and not understand the political risk. Eventually the matter would be pushed up higher and people in a better understanding of politics will go, do not do that. That's just going to create a terrible political dilemma for everyone concerned. Don't do it. I note your preemptive strike in response when you posted on WikiLeaks, a leaked Pentagon document that says that the US intelligence intends to destroy WikiLeaks, and the words used are that they would want it to fatally marginalize the organization. And this story is a center of gravity by using the sort of military language, which is what they say is the trust that sources in public happiness. They can destroy that, then they can stop US military with sublowers coming to us. And they say the word with sublow. I mean they're not talking about, or at least not just talking about unauthorized disclosures, which may or may not be revealing a few stairs saying with sublowers people who reveal abuse, they give examples. Examples given Guantanua Bay, when you're released the main menace for this which revealed that they are hiding people from the Red Cross, falsified documents and so on. Collusion, and abuses that we reveal there, and a number of other cases. So these are upset with us because we are revealing abuses and embarrassing the United States military. So we released that report, which was written in 2008. We released this earlier in 2010. And by us releasing that there is an understanding that didn't come from nowhere, that report clearly came from some intelligence inside the United States. We have support inside the US intelligence community. So it is difficult and dangerous for people within the US. And so we have to try to investigate it. Because they will be dissidents. They will step forward. And they will go out. So they have to trade very carefully. What happens when you return to Australia, your homeland, because when you went back recently, they took away your passport saying that it was look for and something you have to need to do. But miraculously, you didn't need a new one. They gave it back to you, sometime later. And just a little bit after that they also searched my bags and made references to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Australian Federal Police, specific information that had to come off their database file. So it's quite interesting. In Australia, there is a sort of patriotism in Australia that is proud of what you like, and proud of me. And that is defensive. And as a result, there have been very positive articles in Fairfax press and in the Australian. So I'm told by my politically connected people in Australia that it would be extremely difficult to arrest me to take me or deport me or our other volunteers in Australia. That said, there has been extensive spying on our people in that country, which I assume has been agreed to in some way by the Australian government. And we have some information about the Australian government being involved in that. It is hard after a while to keep these shadows at bay, do you get used to them? You must say to yourself, look, I can't become paranoid about this. You know, I'm going to live a normal life. Is that difficult? I'd speak comfortably easier. We have some security portions. We have some security procedures. We have different people doing different things, different places, depending on their need for security. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm going to go around, I've provided I'm not meeting with a source. Quite a few BBC journalists who have got in touch with me and want to talk about the pressure within the BBC. In other words, they represent the kind of rebellion that you're describing. What would you say to people like them in an institution like the BBC or indeed journalists who are led by their conscience or just by their professional integrity within certain organisations? What would you say to them? What can they do? When your stories are killed, get them to us and we'll publish something. That's the simplest one. Or when the primary source material is a press-skip and to us. You don't have to leave the institution. You can work on the inside and on the outside and keep this line between the two invisible. What they can't get on there and what they can't get in the paper, give to a key leg. Unfortunately, there's no career. Motivation do that because you're going to stick your name on it. At the time, but later on, maybe you can put your name on it, you know, when you leave the institution. What wouldn't you accept? What wouldn't you publish? What leak wouldn't you publish? Unlike every other news organisation, we say precisely in policy what we will and will not accept. We will not accept the material that we publish. So we say to whistleblowers, we will take material that hasn't appeared before. It is being some force suppressing it, legal or dreadful violence or being fired. And that is of diplomatic, critical ethical or historical significance and that you didn't write yourself. So who I did fits that? We will publish it. Now we might go through some harm in my isolation process in the interim. So the only forms that has taken is, I think that with a British national party, when we publish their secret, membership lists, we contacted all these people ahead of time and we said, we're going to publish this in a few days. We're giving you the heads up, just in case, you know, you're developing them within public and so on, because there's problems, you go and sort it out. So that has always worked so far, where aware of no instance, where anyone has come to any sort of physical harm as a result of anything we're published. We are aware quite as you result with people being fired or lost elections as a result of things that we're published, but that's seem to be on the side of the angels. If it's some stage that policy doesn't seem to be working, then we'll create a new policy. Remember, our goal is just as our means is transparency, we don't confuse these two. The propaganda efforts of governments has become vast. I read an AP investigation that said the US was spending 4.5 billion over the last five years. It was basically winning half some minds, not of the enemy, but of the same people. This kind of information war and portrays general portrays in his counter-insertory see manual refers to wars of perception in which the media is one of the weapons. So information war has never been more important, but what happens when Wikki leaks runs into the United Kingdom, which has some of the most draconian secrecy laws in the world, such as the official secret act. Isn't it more difficult here to to mine information? We haven't found a problem publishing a UK information. I mean, when we look at the official secrets act, label documents, we see a state that it is an offense to retain the information, and it is an offense to destroy the information. So the only possible outcome is that we have the published information. And that's what you think have done on many, many occasions. I noticed one of those that I had a personal interest in was one that from the Ministry of Defense classified document that equated terrorists with investigative journalists, so as threats. And Russian spy. And Russian spy, as in fact many sections of that report, in vascular journalists are the number one threat to the sort of information security of the Ministry of Defense. That was a two thousand page document on how to stop leaks. I did not know whether to be offended or rumored. Well, it was nice to be having an impact.