We Steal Secrets

source: We Steal Secrets

Amazing how this gets called a documentary. Unverifiable assertions and comments when the 2 primary subjects didn't defend themselves or made any commentary. It paints a picture to draw you in and then does a 180 to attack the subjects. Things that it didn't mention and/or completely wrong: Title is completely false, they don't steal secrets. Sweden has not refused an extradition request from the USA for over 20 years. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured. Harder to extradite from UK then because of his public status and then sitting government would lose support from part of it's constituents. Swedish prosecutor could question him from UK (she claimed she couldn't) because they did it with an murder suspect in the EU. List list goes on... I will wait for the other 2 films where all these points will hopefully be address.

After watching this film, I wanted to research this film further (something I typically do after watching a documentary, rather than taking a film at face value). After internet searching for Assange's response to the documentary, I found the Wikileaks' response in the form of an annotated transcript of the film. The documentary appears to be a slick piece of anti-Wikileaks propaganda, peddled as critical and objective journalism. I won't go into this further as other reviews provide information challenging the factual errors. I encourage you to read the transcript yourself and make up your own mind. Because IMDb does not allow reviews to include URLs, I can not provide the direct link to the transcript. However, it can be found by performing an internet search for the following: "We Steal Secrets the annotated transcript".

If you've been following Wikileaks from the start there's absolutely no new information here. If you know nothing about it, this documentary is hardly an impartial introduction and features a bunch of bitter people cashing in on their past relationships with Assange (or Manning). The director hoped he would get Assange to 'star' in this pic, but when Assange demanded fair compensation, he decided to make a smear piece instead. I'm sure Gibney knows that, from the film's marketing and packaging, MANY individuals will think that Assange was somehow involved in the film's creation before buying a ticket or paying for a download. Those people will be sorely disappointed after realizing they have lined the pockets of a disingenuous filmmaker. The pathetic edit of Jullian dancing to Lady Gaga is a great illustration of Gibney's journalistic integrity and the idiotic, lowbrow audience this is targeted at. GARBAGE.

claims to be a documentary but in reality is a mocumentary... this should be entitled... We Steal Secrets: The Story that Attacks Wikileaks or something like that... in the first part, viewers would actually think that this is like the documentary about anonymous but in the middle it goes out of hand... all those who were interviewed basically was against Julian and not even one was a supporter of wikileaks... i pity the lawyer and the people praising assange in the film as it seems that they were being used... what a shame example of a claimed documentary... awful lot!

Although it has earned significant criticism from Assange's fans, We Steal Secrets is an insightful documentary, arousing sympathy for the Wikileaks cause while remaining critical of Julian Assange. The film follows a chronological narrative from Assange's early years as a hacker to the Bradley Manning scandal. It makes a good case for the necessity of an organization like Wikileaks, noting its role in exposing banking malfeasance in Iceland and the infamous "Collateral Murder" tape. It also provides an excellent argument for the heroism of Bradley Manning. Although it is careful to show his personal problems, it makes clear that his motivations were wholly benevolent. The film documents the sadistic treatment of Manning by the American military, making clear who the real bad guys are. Much of the controversy surrounding this film revolves around its depiction of Julian Assange. Although I think its treatment of the rape accusations against him was not thorough enough, (I personally believe the allegations to be trumped up), the heart of its critique is that Assange was too self-centered to be a good leader for Wikileaks. He ultimately alienated most of his allies, fatally weakening the organization. The ultimate message of We Steal Secrets is that we should not put too much faith in a public figure, or follow them unquestioningly. This is as applicable to the recent Edward Snowden case as it is to Assange. It is a thought-provoking film well worth seeing.

This two hour documentary attempts to tell the story of Wikileaks and does so using TV footage, interviews with government people and former Wikileaks employees and even Adrian Lamo. Is it a fair documentary? I don't really know. It builds the case against Assange, but it keeps a friendly and supportive view of Wikileaks. It shows that Bradley Manning is practically being tortured under US incarceration, but does its best to describe the boy as an uber-gay mal-adapted geek. It seems to try to be as objective as possible, but does not interview either Assange or Manning and makes them both look like defective weirdos. My opinion? If this were a politically commanded documentary, then it is a very subtle one, trying to polarize the audience, break any collaboration between Assange and his former employees and fans, even going so far as to show the regret of Adrian Lamo (the guy that ratted out Manning) when he cries on camera, so that he can never be an objective party in the story. This is the usual way official documentaries work, though. They gain power through polarization. But if this is not a political order, then the documentary doesn't actually say much, other than go through a weak and one sided timeline amongst the various special effects and dramatic music that fill the movie and make it rather boring. At one time I fell asleep while watching it. Therefore I cannot rate it but below average. I have this fear that the makers of the film were actually trying to show the story and report it accurately, but I fell into the trap of sympathizing with one side or another, but then again, if they wanted objectivity, they should have surfed the middle line, not throw Assange to the wolves.

Both the US government and Julian Assange come under lots of criticism in this movie. One of the major arcs of the movie is Assange's descent into what he claims to hate: a power-mad autocrat obsessed with secrecy. Meanwhile, the US government comes across poorly for their treatment of Bradley Manning, along with them casting Assange as a villain but ignoring the mainstream media that worked with Assange. The doc probably could have used a little bit more of a pro-Assange viewpoint. To be fair, they did ask to interview Assange, but (according to the doc) he asked for $1 million. While the movie doesn't have interviews with Assange or Manning, they do have interviews with former Wikileaks employees, people who knew Bradley Manning, and others. The film focuses on more than just Assange, as it also looks at the impact of the cables released by Wikileaks, along with the US government's policies before and after Wikileaks. It should be noted that Wikileaks disputes the accuracy of the film, while the director disputes the account of Wikileaks. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Steal_Secrets#Response_from_Wikileaks Looking at the other reviews, this review will probably be voted as "unhelpful" by Assange supporters, but oh well. Watch the movie and make up your mind for yourself.

There will be people that hate this Documentary, on both sides of this story. I found it pretty fair! It is though, still an ongoing story. NOTE: Those that whine about Assange not being interviewed, obviously are planted reviews and never watched the film. The Film states a for the record that it was the desire, and the filmmakers made every attempt to interview him! The problem was that he REFUSED to be interviewed unless the filmmakers made a large donation to WikiLeaks. SO that tells the story right there.) First I really don't think this story is unfair to either those that oppose Wikileaks and hate them, or those that support them...or him (Assange). It gives the story about who the mysterious Assange, and how he became the man he is. Starting as a computer hacker, and turning into a bit of a hypocritical, ideologue who has become reclusive and even turned on those that worked with him. It does show Bradley Manning as sort of a confused man, and almost a victim, but that is a bit tempered by what he really did. There is no doubt that this man needs to be in prison. And Adrian Limo, who turned in Bradley Manning, was portrayed in a pretty neutral light. Limo probably has a little less morals than desired, and facilitated Manning's leaks, but it's hard to get a read if he really should be a villain or not, but it's pretty certain he isn't a real good guy. There are those that are all-in Idealogues that support Assange and WikiLeaks. Personally, if WikiLeaks was just publishing leaked info passed onto them, I would say that they are doing nothing any other news source would not do. This is something the film pushes a bit. BUT. What wikileaks WAS doing was putting out a "wishlist" of the type of info they wanted, and was actively encouraging people to spy, or steal sensitive information from governments. People who have access to such information have taken oaths to keep it. On that point they are horrible people. Assange is just an idealistic ego maniac who has no morals and is just as evil as those he claims to expose. Take the scene where a reporter says he asked Assange if he would publish information that could get Afghan civilians killed, Assange's answer was "Yes," justifying if by saying if the Afghan civilian cooperated with U.S. forces, that is cooperating with the enemy and therefore deserved to die. Assange is NOT a hero, or noble character like his supporters think he is. No, he is more about Julian Assange, and anything to stroke his own ego. Tell me, did he seek out documents and leaks from the Iranian or North Korean Nuclear programs? How about looking for communications from Terrorist groups and suicide bombers? How about the Chinese government and their human rights abuses? Did WikiLeaks go after the abuses of the Assad Regime in Syria? Before you label someone a hero take a look at what they are really doing. Just something to ponder With all the haters and supporters alike it will be hard to give this documentary a fair review. I give it a nine. I think it was pretty well done but the story hasn't ended yet. I also think it tells a good portion from several sides and I really don't think it is extremely biased in any way. Those that support him....well. it's hard to ignore the negatives about Assange coming from those that supported and worked with him in the beginning but were thrown out due to an ego maniacs paranoid delusions. I would also say that a "hero" doesn't run and hide. If he feels he is right he stands tall and is prepared to face and consequences of his actions. That does not describe Assange.

The title of this "documentary" is misleading and deceptive. Wikileaks does not steal secrets. WikiLeaks is an international, online, non-profit organisation which publishes information submitted by courageous whistleblowers, people with conscience. Most whistleblowers prefer to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. Google what happened to Bradley Manning and Mark Snowden. They are being hounded, hunted, criminalised, ostracized, ex-communicated by the very top people whose secret criminal deals and activities they have exposed. Don't buy and don't watch this movie.