4 ms·

I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo:

by sidi 13y ago

I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo: "THE FIFTH ESTATE falsely implies that WikiLeaks harmed 2,000 US government informants. ... US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever." "Although THE FIFTH ESTATE purports to be about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the film was made without the involvement of WikiLeaks or any of its staff, including Julian Assange. ... The multi-million dollar production, produced by Dreamworks and distributed by Disney, has not financially contributed to WikiLeaks or any of its defence funds."

harryf 13y ago
Sadly I get the feeling the memo won't help reduce the misinformation effect of the film. Unlikely the mainstream press outlets will even pick this up. Perhaps negative IMDB reviews is the best that can be hoped for
mpyne 13y ago
> US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever Not being able to prove harm is different from proving that one did not harm someone. Especially when, in this case, the U.S. took measures to pre-emptively mitigate any harm as a preventive concern. Was the U.S. supposed to let their informants be killed by the Taliban just to be able to say that Assange is an even bigger asshole? Please.
- hhw 13y ago
  I guess you don't subscribe to innocent until proven guilty? Even after exhaustive investigation and efforts to prove such guilt?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I believe there is a difference between reality and what the legal system is able to prove. They are necessarily different, as the legal system must apply to society as a whole, which means that we require it to have safeguards that will necessarily reduce its ability to deliver convictions. This doesn't mean that any party not convicted didn't do it; it simply means they were convicted, just as the legal system sometimes manages to deliver convictions on people who were actually innocent. In this case there's no way to even think of how to apply a legal-style investigation except under some kind of quantum parallel-universe model. Exhaustive investigation or not, the fact remains that as soon as the U.S. learned of the leaks they took prompt action to forestall the ability of AQ and the Taliban to act on those leaks, which forever screwed up the possibility of conclusively determining which particular individuals would or would not have been slain. That the threat was mitigated doesn't mean there wasn't an existential threat though, nor does it need a jury of 12 people to demonstrate what is plainly obvious: Loose Lips Sink Ships.

by sidi 13y ago

harryf 13y ago

Sadly I get the feeling the memo won't help reduce the misinformation effect of the film. Unlikely the mainstream press outlets will even pick this up. Perhaps negative IMDB reviews is the best that can be hoped for

mpyne 13y ago

> US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever Not being able to prove harm is different from proving that one did not harm someone. Especially when, in this case, the U.S. took measures to pre-emptively mitigate any harm as a preventive concern. Was the U.S. supposed to let their informants be killed by the Taliban just to be able to say that Assange is an even bigger asshole? Please.

hhw 13y ago
I guess you don't subscribe to innocent until proven guilty? Even after exhaustive investigation and efforts to prove such guilt?
- mpyne 13y ago
  I believe there is a difference between reality and what the legal system is able to prove. They are necessarily different, as the legal system must apply to society as a whole, which means that we require it to have safeguards that will necessarily reduce its ability to deliver convictions. This doesn't mean that any party not convicted didn't do it; it simply means they were convicted, just as the legal system sometimes manages to deliver convictions on people who were actually innocent. In this case there's no way to even think of how to apply a legal-style investigation except under some kind of quantum parallel-universe model. Exhaustive investigation or not, the fact remains that as soon as the U.S. learned of the leaks they took prompt action to forestall the ability of AQ and the Taliban to act on those leaks, which forever screwed up the possibility of conclusively determining which particular individuals would or would not have been slain. That the threat was mitigated doesn't mean there wasn't an existential threat though, nor does it need a jury of 12 people to demonstrate what is plainly obvious: Loose Lips Sink Ships.