如何评价 2016 年 11 月 8 日美国总统大选结果？
Assange Statement on the US Election
8 November 2016
By Julian Assange
In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.
On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.
The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.
This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.
The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.
We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.
At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.
We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.
That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.
This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.
Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.
This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.
The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.
Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.
In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.
WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.
We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.
WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.
维基解密，就像所有的出版者一样，终极目标是对其投资者负责。那些投资者就是你们。我们的资金源完全来源于公众捐赠和我们出版的书籍销售。这让我们保持自己的原则，独立并自由，没有其他任何一家有影响力的媒体机构可以做到。但是这也意味着我们不拥有如同CNN / MSNBC，或是克林顿选举团队所拥有的资源去持续性对抗批评。
Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.
Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.
update：11.9，0:20 PST（得，我都不知道换时间了）.伯克利的学生正在游行，高喊"not our president". 天上直升机乱飞，觉也睡不了，就像14年底BLM在复习周大游行一样。选的人中你意就是小甜甜，不中意就是牛夫人。合你意就是民主，不合你意就是rigged，那和你们反对的川普有什么区别？这很伯克利，真的。fb上的人生百态写一部三言二拍绝对没问题，明末清初那些东林文人不食人间烟火、自认清高正确、遇到质疑立马翻脸的情况在他们脸上表现的淋漓尽致。
update: 11.9, 23:15 PST. 今天学校有很多人游行，大概上万吧。我一个Chem专业的人，看到大家就像信仰崩塌一样的死气沉沉，甚至Phillip Geissler如此乐观开朗的人上课的时候都心不在焉时常写错字，我觉得很难过，又很愤怒。都是善良单纯的人，居然被MSM洗成这个样子。贴一段我一个在U Chicago的朋友的评论还有我的转发吧，也不想翻译了，主要是给身边的美国朋友们看的。措辞会和你们平时中文界面里看到的我不一样，毕竟我还要命。
While I'm waiting for Secretary Clinton's concession speech, I felt that I could write something to reflect on last night, as this is the first election that I witnessed first-hand.
First, I want to say to those who are extremely stunned, disappointed, destroyed, and scared to death - DON'T BE. As more than half of Clinton backers think Trump supporters are deplorable, guess what, a similar percentage of Trump voters think of you the very same way. So, regardless of who you think fits to be the president, stop trying to secure that moral high ground, right this minute.
The truth is, half of the country voted for what you (we) believe is a racist Nazi bigot, who did all kinds of stuff that is disqualifying. We can start to call them many names: racists, sexists, morons, white supremacists, f*cking a******, but they are Americans that also deserve to live in this democracy. There's a big urban-rural divide in U.S., and you will never understand that by living in a bubble. My family live in a county to the north of Houston that voted overwhelmingly Trump - and I can tell you they are not what you were taught Trump supporters are. Quite on the contrary, as much as you loved Obama, some people's lives were fucked over, and there's really nothing wrong about showing their disagreement with their votes. Even if some of them truly voted for white supremacy, we need to work on healing that gap, other than widening it. This is what democracy is actually supposed to be.
On the other hand, what democracy is not supposed be, is DNC colluding with Clinton from the beginning of 2015, to plot against other Democratic contenders; it's stealing debate questions from CNN; it's taking yuge sum of money from special interests and do them favor. To be honest, as much as I agree with many of Clinton's policies, her politics in the past two years embarrassed the party and the nation big time. This kind of corruptness, corporatism, and abuse of power is exactly what I saw in the place where I was born and raised, and I don't want to see that represented by a U.S. president(ial candidate). That's exactly why 60%+ voters were approval of Obama but Clinton failed to win.
Starting from the very beginning of her campaign, Secretary Clinton has run on the idea that "it's my turn to be president," and by the way, the first female president of this nation. That particular sentiment eventually lost her the campaign. No one, absolutely no one, "deserves" to be president, and if Clinton hasn't learned that in 2008, this time around we all learned that lesson.
Last night, we saw a presidential candidate who couldn't even wait for an extra hour to make a formal concession speech, who dared to send a political surrogate and tell supporters to "head home," while millions of Americans stayed up late, half of which her own voters. If that's who we've chosen to run against Trump, I guess we lose. And we never had a chance, since the first DNC email was sent out to hand-pick Clinton as the nominee.
Don't blame Russia (Seriously? Are we back to the Cold War?), don't blame people who voted Johnson, don't blame Sanders supporters whom Hillary never respected, don't blame young voters, white voters, and so on - blame the smugness that lost us an important election, and change that, starting today.
Life goes on. The American democracy is alive and well. We still have a Congress, and a Supreme Court - them being Republican doesn't mean we don't have them. And more importantly, I hope we still fight for the same things: protestors at Standing Rock are still being brutalized, people still work 40/50 hours a week and cannot put food on the table, our inner cities are honestly in huge distraught, while big businesses make millions of dollars of contributions every election round. I believe there's a path to address these problems under a President Trump, and we should all work towards that, and crying and calling people names don't help with anything.
I believe the USA WILL have a female president. It may be Michelle Obama, who is even overqualified as the first lady, or Elizabeth Warren, a better and more consistent senator than HRC. My friend said all the stuff I wanted to say, from the heart of Illinois. We are in Berkeley, and we should be proud of the democracy and equality we fought for since the Vietnam War. If DJT does anything misconduct in the future, use the power of democracy, vote for the senate, vote for the house, and tell others, especially people in the Lake District and NC who lost their jobs, that what SPECIFICALLY we can do to help them, instead of letting it go and make them so "deplorable" that they became and elected a "sexist, racist, homophobia and etc,." If you are annoyed by what I just said, I am not mad at you. Calm down and ask ourselves, the strongest country in the world, the United State of America, how did it become the strongest and most developed, carrying half of "uneducated sexists, racists, homophobians, and etc,." at the same time? We are in Berkeley, we are the Cal undergrads, and if we regard ourselves as the future elites in this country, please think about what my friend just said.