Julian Assange Walks Out of
CNN Interview

On October 23, 2010, gawker.com published a piece by Adrien Chen entitled WikiLeaks Founder Will Walk Out of Your Interview If Asked About His Rape Case. The article included a CNN video of the interview of Julian Assange by one none-too-bright Atika, who prefers to ask Assange about "allegations" of rape rather than about evidence that U.S. troops handed prisoners over to the Iraqis to be tortured and that the U.S. caused the deaths of over 100,000 people in Iraq (actually, going back to 1990, over a million). Assange informs her that if she persists he will walk out. She persisted. He walked out.

Here is Chen's article:

In addition to facilitating the largest military leak in U.S. history yesterday, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a petulant man-child. Watch him walk out of a CNN interview when talk turned to his pending Swedish rape case.

[CNN VIDEO]

When the interviewer presses Assange about the rape and sexual molestation charges against him, Assange cooks up some of those Mission:Impossible rhetorical flourishes he's known for:

"It's completely disgusting, Atika. I'm going to walk if you're going to contaminate us revealing the deaths of 104,000 people with attacks against my person."

Sorry, Julian, but you were the one who spun your botched tryst with a couple Swedish groupies into a devious Pentagon "smear campaign." Until they produce their spy IDs or the case is closed, you're going to have to live with questions about it.

At least the diva thing isn't an act. a New York Time [sic] profile of Assange published today reveals that he's just as snippy to his Wikileaks colleagues in private:

In an encrypted online chat, a transcript of which was passed to The Times, Mr. Assange was dismissive of his colleagues. He described them as "a confederacy of fools," and asked his interlocutor, "Am I dealing with a complete retard?"

(No wonder all his volunteers are quitting.)

OK, we'll quit contaminating the important work of Wikileaks by talking about what a prick Julian Assange is.

This is a prick calling someone else a prick. If he wants to see a prick he should look in the mirror.

Chen's term "botched tryst" is curious. How can you "botch" a tryst? Still, Julian should have known better than to allow himself to be seduced by that man-hating feminist (or perhaps more accurately, radical lesbian) Anna Ardin. The CIA and Mossad, like all spook agencies, are adept at setting up honey traps, though in this case their bait may rather have been the second woman, Sofia Wilén, whose groupie-like behavior was noted by others at the preceding press conference given by Assange in Stockholm.

Among the comments to Chen's article the following by WeldonBurger stands out:

Adrien, Adrien, Adrien ... if you're going to behave like Pavlov's fucking monkey [dogs, actually], do it for your own entertainment. Well I suppose you are, but still.

Wikileaks, personified by Assange, has managed to turn several of the world's largest and most powerful press institutions into their personal distribution channels. Whatever you think of Assange, whatever you think of what his organization does, that is, as Joe Biden is wont to say, a BIG FUCKING DEAL. It's better than Mission Fucking Impossible because it's, you know, real. And Tom Cruise isn't in it, so Scientology doesn't get a cut.

So if Assange wants to get all pissy about the importance of his work as opposed to talking about the rape charges that even Swedish prosecutors and adamant feminists acknowledge are on the distant, cutting edge of legal theory, then he is in fact entitled to do so, particularly since he warned the reporter four times, politely, that he was going to walk if she pursued that line of questioning.

The Pentagon hates him, and would prefer that anyone who talks about him and Wikileaks does so in terms of his personality, his ego, his Swedish Problem and the possibility that what he's doing might -- hasn't, but could possibly one day -- cost some US allies their lives in the countries where we have killed, maimed and displaced far more people than the number of documents Julian Assange and Wikileaks have published.

The newspaper publishers he has bent to his will hate him too, possibly even more than the Pentagon does; they too would rather you chat about his personal failings than about his work or the fact that they are his bitches. It's horrible for them; they need him to keep feeding them his stuff because if they don't publish it someone else will, but they want him to stop because they hate him and if he's gone, they don't have to worry about someone else publishing his stuff and making news with it.

So what you're doing here, when you make your snippy little Mission Impossible comments, and flutter your fucking hands and say but you know they're going to ask about your personal issues, as if it's his fault that US reporters are such complete fucking twits, is exactly what the Pentagon and the institutional press want you to do, which is to marginalize the absolutely stunning work his organization does and turn your readers' attention from the revelations about the appalling number of lives ended or ruined by what the US has done during the past decade and what it threatens to continue doing throughout the next one.

The financial cost to Americans has been enormous, and it is being used to justify the continuing assault on this country's pathetic social safety net and the diversion of funds from projects that might actually create jobs and help out the economy, assuming anyone in power actually wants to do that, and while Wikileaks in reality probably will not be able to affect US foreign and military policy, they are at least taking a shot at it [and] in the process at least making more Americans aware of what ruthless fucking mass murderers their elected and appointed rulers are.

But hey, let's talk about Julian's arrogance and hilarious expectations of the professional press because, you know that's fucking important.

Here's an extract from an editorial which appeared in The Guardian (UK) on 2010-10-26:

Many attempts were made to justify the invasion of Iraq, but one of the most frequently and cynically used was that, irrespective of the absence of weapons of mass destruction, putting an end to the barbarities of Saddam Hussein's regime was a moral imperative. Well, now [with the WikiLeaks publication] there is chapter and verse, from ringside seats, on the systematic use of torture by the Iraqi government that the US installed in Saddam's place. The worst practices of Saddam's regime did not apparently die with him, and whereas numerous logs show members of the coalition making genuine attempts to stop torture in Iraqi custody, it is clear their efforts were both patchy and half-hearted. In the worst incidents, one can only reasonably conclude that one set of torturers and thugs has been replaced by another. ... [The U.S.] administration has a legal and moral obligation to investigate credible claims of US forces' complicity in torture. It is not irresponsible or partisan to publish possible evidence of complicity in torture. It is a duty to do so.




In December 2010 Julian Assange was interviewed for the BBC and Al Jazeera. He walked out of neither interview.


A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

Wikileaks and CableGate
The Iraq War Torture Serendipity Home Page