Julian Assange's interview of Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah

I've seen a lot of interviews, and a lot of interviewers.  Julian Assange's interview of Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah does NOT measure up.  Just to be honest,  I am not a fan of Assange's politics, and am personally quite critical of the man. I actually watched his program to find out just who was brave enough to advertise with him...no one, it seems - and I'm not surprised.  Advertisers generally aren't dumb.

Quite independent of my dislike of Assange's politics, I found that the man is a miserable journalist and interviewer as well.  Below are a few of the problems I found with his interview.

1 - The questions are obviously canned.  Assange is checking his printout of questions each time before he asks anything, and there are NO followup or clarification questions after the answers are given in spite of the fact that Nasrallah frequently didn't answer the question as asked.  It is possible that a condition of the interview was that the questions be pre-vetted, but that makes this a PR program, not an interview.  No journalist looking for the truth would accept such conditions.

2 - The claim by Nasrallah that the reports about things he had said which Assange had found in STOLEN DIPLOMATIC CABLES were just western propoganda to attack Hezbollah is ridiculous on the face of it.  If it were propaganda it would have been in the press without Wikileaks having to steal it.  Assange should have at least questioned that claim further...as in, "If this was a propaganda attack on Hezbollah, why did I find it suppressed and hidden in a diplomatic cable?"

3 - Hassan Nasrallah is quite obviously in favor of Assad of Syria doing whatever it takes to deal with his people, however many he kills.  The Arab Spring movement in Syria is not politically different from the ones in Libya or Egypt that Hezbollah supported, so that they verbally defend and support Assad in this case has to be politically motivated by some relationship with Assad.  Why didn't Assange ask more about this?!

4 - Assange is sitting there listening to the answers he is getting, and NODDING HIS HEAD THE ENTIRE TIME!!  I always thought *I* was pretty gullible about expecting people to tell the truth, but you've got to be kidding me!  The video shows him to be just sucking up and believing every word Nasrallah says, like a well-behaved child in a classroom.  The last time I saw that level of gullibility was on a late night infomercial!

5 - Assange is obviously an atheist, and at the 24:15 minute point in this interview he attempts a "very provocative" non-political question (which to Assange means "religious"), and showed himself to be naive beyond belief.  At 24:52 you can see Nasrallah working very hard not to laugh out loud at just how ridiculous the question was, but he composed himself and found a way to say something he knew would have Assange nodding his head again.  Assange apparently has some sort of naive belief that there is an inherent conflict between being a 'freedom fighter" and believing in a mono-theistic God.  That's just dumb.

There are other reasons this program was weak, but these should suffice for now.   Given the amount of time he's been in the news, I expected Assange to be a lot smarter than this, but after watching it I'm a lot less worried about his anarchistic politics affecting the world.  He isn't smart enough for that to happen.

Wikileaks

As I listen to the continuing furor over the Wikileaks scandal, I have to wonder what the true goals of people like Julian Assange are.

I have read the Wikileaks home page as well as their explanation of their goals and purposes, and why they think what they are doing is a necessary thing to make the world a better place - but I don't see it in their actions. Frankly, I believe that secrets have a place, and while some of them are kept to protect the guilty and should be revealed, that others protect the innocent and should not. In spite of all their claims of redacting and editing out names of people who they believe may be harmed by the release of information, I don't honestly believe that Wikileaks has a rational grip on that idea.

First, the Wikileaks information releases focus primarily on Western nations. Every nation in the world has state secrets, and I find it hard to believe that NO asian nation has anyone willing to reveal the various travesties of justice that may have happened on their home soil. It's almost like South America and Asia don't exist as far as Wikileaks is concerned. Or have their realized -to a man it seems - that people like Assange are the greater threat? That the destabilization of international relations which seems to be the goal of Wikileaks makes this world a MORE dangerous place, not a safer one?

Second, Assange's data releases are timed almost exactly like a kidnapper would carry out threats to harm their victim - the only difference is the apparent lack of demand for a ransom.

The most recent response to the pressure he is under appears to be the release of a list of assets around the world which would harm the interests of the Unites States if they were attacked by terrorists. There is absolutely NO benefit to be found in releasing such information; all he can accomplish by this is let terrorists know where they should strike to do the US the most harm. Wikileaks says this release was to invalidate claims that diplomatic personnel don't spy out strategic information, and defends this release by claiming they haven't revealed what security measures are in place, or where the most vulnerable locations of each asset are, but this is a stupid defense. NO fortress is impregnable, and the BEST protection against terrorists is keeping them from finding out what the best targets are. Remember, these are people who think a good form of attack is to walk into a crowded marketplace full of innocents with a bomb strapped to your chest, and then blow yourself up. OF COURSE what information diplomatic people run across is gathered and evaluated. Every country does that, and it would be incredibly foolish if they didn't. Who doesn't make a point of remembering things they learn about other people and places in case that information is useful in the future?

Assange's history shows a deeply held resentment of governments and authorities of all kinds. From his early hacking days in his home nation of Australia to his current role as the founder of Wikileaks, his internet goals have always been the embarrassment of various entities who had kept secrets for any reason he didn't like. Now that he is reportedly seeking asylum in Switzerland, I'd be surprised if there were any leaks about that country. I'd be willing to bet that his purported goal of "providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices" doesn't extend to a country he hopes will protect him from the anger of the others, and from the justice he faces for his own sexual misadventures.

The real problem is that things like a diplomat's opinion of the leaders of the country he is serving in don't constitute a "censored injustice" in any way, shape or form. That Saudi Arabia doesn't want to publicly reveal their true feelings about Iran's president isn't an injustice. That a Chinese official doesn't want his personal opinion of North Korea's Kim Jong Il, as expressed in a private conversation with a US diplomat (who he HAD to know would pass it along to his superiors), revealed to the world isn't injustice. It's sensible caution. Wikileaks is led by and composed of immature people who don't get that.

Which is why I believe that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are a greater threat to peace and stability on this planet than even any valid injustice they might happen to reveal, and as such they need to be stopped. For the good of us all.

I will NEVER in ANY WAY support or help Wikileaks. I will not contribute to them, I will not "like" them on Facebook, I will not support anyone who advertises with them (there are no advertisers on wikileaks that I could find, BTW), and I will not host any information for them.

I WILL support severe penalties for anyone who betrays his oaths and his country by contributing to wikileaks, and I WILL rejoice at Assange's eventual downfall. This man is a bigger threat to the planet right now than Osama bin Laden.