We Steal Secrets: Die WikiLeaks Geschichte

After viewing We Steal Secrets, you will have a sense that you know Julian Assange and Bradley Manning much better than you could simply by reading mainstream news reports on either one of them.

It's easy to understand why Assange would disapprove of Gibney's portrayal of the Wikileaks founder. Assange is a man with passion, vision and uncommon talent who accomplished something many of us would have considered impossible or at minimum, too daunting. But we now know it changed the dynamics of international relations in very real ways.

Besides his technical brilliance, Assange is possessed of tremendous arrogance. Without it, he most certainly would have been intimidated and stifled well before causing the controversies that made him an overnight rock star of cyberspace.

Bradley Manning -- the movie sheds light on why he did what he did, and HOW he was able to do it, right under the noses of his colleagues and supervisors. In doing so, we come to understand much more about the American military culture in Iraq than even the most devoted news junkie could get from corporate news outlets.

Where other documentaries merely regurgitate what news readers already know, this one goes far beyond.

One criticism I'd make is that the title, We Steal Secrets, is misleading. It is a quote from former CIA director Michael Hayden referring to the US government stealing secrets, NOT Wikileaks.

After a first draft of this review, I read one with incisive insight written by Chris Hedges. He may have had the opportunity to view the movie more than once. Or at least it seems that way given the incredible depth and detail in his surgically precise cutting through producer Alex Gibney's tactics. Why was Assange's human imperfection highlighted. Then, in contrast, former CIA director Michael Hayden's perspective (the American government's point of view), on how the revelation of the documents and videos provided by PFC Manning harmed American interests is taken for granted.

The movie, however, IS the story of Wikileaks, Assange and Manning, and is worth your time. It's longer than most other political documentaries, but will not leave you bored. Then read through Chris Hedges very detailed review.

I'm a retiree living in Mexico who doesn't read newspapers, internet news or watch television. I'm as unbiased as you can get. I was stunned by the venom of many reviewers, most of whom are pro Assange. I kept reading reviews, waiting for someone to state what I considered the obvious point of the movie makers. I didn't see it, so here is my opinion of what the movie is about.

People are weak. We easily lose sight of our original goals when we obtain power. Through power, we become what we originally detested. It's inherent in human nature, and cannot be avoided.

The United States struggles worldwide. Each public servant begins with ideals. Gradually, though the accumulation of power, they face the same decisions as their predecessors. Often, they make the same mistakes. Thus, the Obama of today becomes what the pre-presidential Obama would have considered a war criminal. Ironically, WikiLeaks began the same; idealistically. Then they, particularly Julian Assange, succumbed to the same faults in human nature as their government antagonists. The documentary is the story of good people doing bad things, including Assange. It is also the story of inevitable consequences. If you make a credible challenge to the United States government, don't expect the enemies you've made to say "thank you, you're right, nice job." When a small power declares war on a larger power, don't expect fair play. Expect annihilation.

In war amongst nations, strange allies are created. Assange living in the Ecuadorian embassy? If you believe, as I do, that you can tell the character of a person (or nation) by their friends, what does this say about Assange? One thread of the movie is the character development of this unusual and charismatic man, from idealist to Rock Star Rebel screwing attractive women without thoughts of consequence to paranoid recluse turning on his own friends and ideals to fugitive living under the protection of a corrupt government that is the antithesis of every ideal of freedom he began with. The documentary shows clearly that Assange is just a human being misusing immense power, no different that the governments he first turned on. The movie would have been better if he had been interviewed, but succeeds in making it's point without it. Assange, the man who supposedly puts the dissemination of information ahead of all other considerations, won't do the interview without being paid huge sums of cash. He will also accept in payment secrets damaging to his enemies. He ends up being what he originally hated. Like all great main characters in all good stories, he changes from who he was at the beginning. Through the power of media, he becomes a digital Dorian Gray, an ugly reflection of what once was a beautiful, courageous person.

The documentary carefully gives credit to the original ideal of WikiLeaks, and shows the inevitable path of every idealistic rebel in history (except the American Founding Fathers, especially George Washington) who gains power then becomes what he hated...a corrupt person who puts the protection of acquired power ahead of all other goals.

The movie ends with an image of earth viewed from space, and questions of how we can save ourselves from this vicious cycle of idealism becoming corrupted with power. Every who views this movie with a political axe to grind gets disappointed. There are no heroes or villains in this movie. The documentary is an indictment of human nature, a problem they evoke clearly and with great skill. It's also a problem they don't attempt to solve, except by initiating a dialog.

To those wanted this movie to reflect their own political, moral or legal views, try setting aside your agenda and watching it again. This is a remarkably well made movie with balanced reporting. Their only agenda is telling the truth.

I found it to be a good documentary but it is not consistent over the 2hrs. It tells the story of Wikileaks & Julian Assange & Peter Manning. But it barely manages to scratch surface of the subjects, does not focus on each subjects properly & switches to something else. In my opinion it would have been great if it focused on one topic say Peter Manning & act of whistle blowing. In the last 10 minutes , 2 guys who were affiliated to Wikileaks talk about whistle blowers. "Whistle blowing is an isolating act. You are doing something which your colleagues and friends won't like you to do or they won't understand. That alienated you further from them. " "In the end everybody is just human, if you are leaking something important to a reporter , something that's really makes a difference, then from a human perspective it is difficult not to get credit for it, no one can tap you on shoulder & say courageous thing you did. & that's the complicated part about it , how do you make sure your source don't compromise themselves" It would have been better if more insight into mind of whistle blower was given to us. That would be something which I have n't seen, (except in The Insider (1999), which is a masterpiece). The interviewees could tell more about how the delicacy of the whole process of getting some classified information, protecting the source of information. The whole material of the documentary, with proper story telling can make a very good movie, but not an excellent documentary. I believe documentaries are supposed to be about insight into something & draw some conclusion. It does provide us with lot of information but less insight.

This is a fairly straightforward documentary with some fancy graphic interludes between segments, but some character development that was somewhat surprising. It proceeds primarily chronologically, from an early hacking of NASA & government sites to the establishment of Wikileaks as a self-made depository of accountability and "open source" government. It progresses through the early publishing of government data through the Bradley Manning data provided at the behest of background hacker and the final outing of the State Department cables. I thought the film did a reasonably good job of depicting Assange and his motives, from his early teenage hacking of government sites purely for fun to his firm belief in the right of the public to know what its government is doing behind its back. I had followed some of the developments around 2010-11, but learned a lot more about the background of the other players besides the charismatic and rather self-serving Assange. In particular, a fair amount of time is spent on Manning, including interviews with friends, a superior in his unit, and video and photo clips of him prior to the story breaking. I had known nothing about Adrian Lamo, a mysterious hacker in the background whom Manning confided in anonymously and eventually trusted enough to follow through with recommendations for disclosing the material, only to have Lamo rat him out. Although the popular press had always depicted Manning as simply "apparently gay" the film delves much deeper into his sexual identify conflicts (prior to and during his deployment and throughout the leaking process he struggled with whether to pursue transgender surgery) and marked self-esteem and isolation issues. Assange initially comes across as a quasi-anarchist on a mission to make government accountable, but narcissistic and borderline personality traits become quite apparent as his fame and infamy grow. The "rape" charges are explored, including an interview with one of the two women. What we've heard in the press about one of them being a CIA agent affiliated with Miami/Cuba is blown apart, and (IFF the woman is to be believed) the charge that he had sex and broke a condom but kept going are depicted as true. The woman sounds like she just wants him to admit it. However, the take home message from this film is that everyone may-- or may not-- be lying part or all of the time: Assange, Manning, Lamo, the two purported "rape" victims, and above all governments. Lamo is described in the film as having Asperger's syndrome, but his stilted speech suggests he falls more to the autistic side of the pervasive developmental spectrum. The film succeeds as a character study of the major players even if it does not move in interesting directions or reveal much more than is already known. The saddest aspect is the fate of Manning, whose naiveté is likely to result in a lifetime of torture in a Supermax while the real criminals in the Bush administration remain free.

If this film tells us anything its that the mainstream media like their corporate paymasters are very much in bed with the governmental organizations who Julian Assange and others looks to expose.

From its title its clear that this is film offers little in the way of objective journalism and instead tows the mainstream media line that Assange is not a whistle blower but in fact an irresponsible thief. There is some interesting facts included in the documentary but its inability to remain objective for me at least undermined its credibility and its value as a serious work.

Of course without Assange and people like Bradley Manning the worst excesses of government and corporate society would never come to light. A message this film conspicuously overlooks.