We Steal Secrets, l'histoire de WikiLeaks

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.

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.

Iam all for protecting the people but there a point when things go to far and we gone way beyond that.

The NSA no just tracking terrorists its coping everything with out regard for warrants or what the rights of the people are.

They are spying on their own allies and lying to the public.

Then they go after the people for breaking the law by exposing them and totally disregard the fact they broke the laws in the first place.

There a old saying when the constitution was written up.

The people should not fear the government but the government should fear the people.

By their very actions they creating the governments that these terrorists fear so much.

These guys aren't all saints by any stretch by they have shown that we need to take back control and make the governments responsible to the people once again.

A documentary that details the creation of Julian Assange's controversial website, which facilitated the largest security breach in United States history.

How do you make a documentary on Assange without being political? Even if you try to be neutral, you will inevitably be able to lump interview into two groups: his supporters and his detractors. And he has plenty of both.

For supporters, you can rally around the "Collateral Murder" video and how it shows war in its unvarnished form. Whether or not this video showed a crime or a mistake, it makes us aware of what war is -- something that most of us today will never experience.

Detractors can appreciate how this film not only focuses on Assange's hacking (which is good or bad depending on who you are), but also shows how he is something of a sketchy person, abandoning his children and allegedly assaulting women. And then, he may even have been using Wikileaks funds to pay for his assault defense, which would be wrong.

The documentary also looks closer at Bradley (or Chelsea) Manning than any other source thus far. The e-mails, the access he had and his personal problems. I learned relatively little about Wikileaks from this film, but a good deal on Manning. And for that, I would highly recommend it.

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.