In the leak industry the table turns pretty quickly.

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange turns on the Guardian after paper leaks info on his alleged sexual assault

BY Aliyah Shahid

Old friends are quickly becoming Julian Assange’s new enemies.

The founder of the controversial whistleblower website WikiLeaks slammed British newspaper The Guardian for “selectively” publishing intimate details about his alleged sexual assaults against two women.

The newspaper was one of a handful given first access to secret U.S. documents in exchange for helping WikiLeaks edit the files.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Faith says:

    There’s a difference between “leaked” and “selectively publishing.”

  2. Andrew says:

    Quid apud homines tutum erit, si ne parietibus quidem et scriniis nostra possumus secreta celare? (Hier. Ep. 47)

  3. maskaggs says:


    True, there’s a difference between leaking and selectively publishing, but I’m not sure it would be any less damaging to Assange if the entire file was published.

    I think what’s most ironic is the demand of Assange’s attorney for an investigation into how the file escaped confidence. Is he serious?

  4. maskaggs says:

    *Edit* That should have read “confidentiality,” not “confidence.”

  5. Random Friar says:

    There is, also, in a way, “selective publishing” of Wikileaks, since not all pertinent documents have been leaked (indeed, it would be nigh impossible to leak all diplomatic and/or military documents about our allies, enemies, etc). Remember, the administration had to go through all the leaked documents to figure out what was leaked. Now, the incompleteness of the documentation is not Wikileak’s fault (they only can give out what they receive), but in a way we’re working with a lot of loose strings.

  6. Bryan Boyle says:

    Turn about is fair play.

    See how the little twerp screams when he’s on the receiving end? While I have no doubt that disclosing the USG piles of paper are a bit disconcerting and potentially threatening especially to those who are exposed..the Aussie is no hero, no ‘defender of justice’, no ‘above the law journalist’. He has an agenda (well, most of of the lame stream media does too…), and, is being treated the same as the target of his crusade.

    Tough. Man up, Julian. You like with dogs…you arise with fleas.

  7. moconnor says:

    Not sure why this is on a Catholic blog, but IMO private communications should remain just that. People and governments have the right to confidential communications. Asange is essentially guilty of espionage in my book. Hope he gets his due.

  8. maskaggs says:

    There’s also an element of arrogant (in my opinion, anyway) vigilantism in Assange’s actions, as he has apparently decided that he is the arbiter of justice. His claims that the law had to be broken to leak classified information for the greater good are easily countered by the assertion that governments need privacy to protect the greater good. I am willing to bet that being challenged in his claim to authority is a very unpleasant experience for Assange indeed.

  9. The Egyptian says:

    whats the old sayings about living by the sword, dieing by the sword. Touche, payback is a b—h, what goes around comes around, etc

    Personally what I find amusing , he claimed to have all kinds of dirt on Russia, someone talked to him, not a peep about Russia, realized he would be getting his brain ventilated if he did

    Honestly he is really not the bad guy in this, freedom of the press and all that jazz, now wittle Bradly (man child) Manning among others is guilty of espionage, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

  10. Robertus Pittsburghensis says:

    Moconnor is right on the mark. Violating the right to privacy is no part of freedom of speech. Wikileaks does for free speech what credit card fraud does for free trade: it retards it.

  11. Jack Hughes says:

    Interestingly enough I sympathise with Assange on this one; whilst one can debate to death the morality/legality of what he has done he hasn’t ‘selectively’ published the cables, instead he has published them in full.

    The Guardian it would seem has selectively published the alligations against him so as to predujuce the view of the reader.

    For the Record I don’t agree with Assange’s actions (wikleaks) but (a) the man deserves a fair trial in what is most certainly a politically motivated case and (b) last week he gave a very good account of himself in an interview last week- I wouldn’t write him off yet

    “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake”

  12. Puragu says:

    Assange in his moral judgement has shown that he cannot be impartial and as such his Wikileaks cannot be trusted to publish everything submitted to them. We cannot even know that his organisation will not betray whistleblowers to foreign governments. Assange himself keeps an encrypted insurance file online which in contains classified information which he is using as a pawn in this game of anarchist chicken he is playing with the US government. This shows that he puts own comfort and ability to throw insults around as more important than the primary reason behind the existence of his organisation – to reveal state secrets to world citizens. Can Assange be trusted to be neutral and sensible? I don’t think so.

  13. Tom in NY says:

    Qui oritur rima, rima cadet.

    Salutationes omnibus.

  14. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Is there any reason, other than a prudential or jurisprudential one, why the charges made or accounts given by these two women should not be made public? Crimes may have been committed under Swedish law: who may know – or be kept from knowing – the details, and why? And if, as, e.g., Jack Hughes suggests, it may be “a politically motivated case” – in being brought when and how it is brought – is that ‘abusus’ any reason for the ‘usum’ of the recourse to law – assuming there proves to be a case under Swedish law – to be prevented?

  15. Gaz says:

    I reckon Assanges’ problems began when he leaked the new translation of the Missal.

  16. catholicmidwest says:

    There is no honor among thieves.

Comments are closed.