This 2013 documentary film by Alex Gibney focuses on the enormous Wikileaks data dump of 2010, which was prompted by the massive files released by Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. The filmmaker takes an open-minded and balanced approach to this controversial topic. While Gibney was unwilling to pay the $1 million asking price for an interview with Julian Assange, there is still abundant footage and sound bytes of Assange in his own words.The film is successful in raising the ethical concerns about whether such classified information as strategic military data should be in the public domain. The position of Julian Assange is clearly stated in the film: "Information should be free." In this regard, Assange was breaking new ground in using his computer skills to release a video of war atrocities in Iraq when civilian deaths resulted from American military incompetence. Of course, the video footage drives home Assange's point when the driver of a truck was taking his kids to school when he was killed, and a bystander's camera was mistaken for a weapon, prior to the bombing. This kind of information was aired nightly during the Vietnam War. Today, it is not. Thus, the importance of accountability to the American public.The opposing position presented in the film is that it is necessary for the military to keep secrets to protect those who are engaged in a covert operations. This position is argued in the film by Michael Haden, a retired general and former Director of the CIA. The film's title, "We Steal Secrets" is a line spoken in the film by Haden, as he argues that the nature of war in the twenty-first century demands secrecy.But Haden's countervailing argument about mandatory secrecy does not hold up under close scrutiny. Haden believes that the American public must be kept in the dark about issues that HE deems imperative to national security. This paternalistic attitude is at the heart of why there have been so many needless wars in American history of the past century when bureaucrats, as opposed to elected officials are making decisions of policy and shaping our history as a nation. Haden was not an elected official, hence, the importance of Hayden keeping the Congress and Americans apprised of the protracted wars. As an apologist for state secrecy, Haden was also proven wrong about the computer skills of Bradley (Chelsea) Manning that allowed Manning to store images even after he had assaulted his female supervisor and was relegated to the mail room. There appears to be no concern from Haden about the ease of access to United States government classified materials that led to their eventual dissemination to the public. The ethical issues raised in the film appear to be tied directly to bureaucratic incompetence on the part of leaders like Michael Haden.Towards the end of this long documentary, the film went off the rails by spending far too much time on the allegations of sexual misconduct of Julian Assange (the rape charges against him were eventually dropped in Sweden in 2017). There is also too much time wasted on the personal sexual identity and the incarceration of Bradley Manning. (President Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning, who had become Chelsea Manning by early 2017). So, where does that leave us now? ANSWER: Probably in the same state of confusion, controversy, and public apathy about the secrecy issue as when Assange was using the handle of "Mendax" as a teenager computer geek.

In a recent interview on DEMOCRACY NOW!, Julian Assange referred to Wikileaks as "the Rebel Library of Alexandrea." He's right: without the Revelations of the past several years, we'd still be in the dark about so much. Unfortunately, a lot of people are STILL in the dark about a LOT of things. For instance: the melting ice in Greenland is on the verge of laying bare nuclear waste that was buried there decades ago. There are hundreds if not thousands of cities in the U.$. with LEAD in the drinking water (including, believe it or not, Wasshington, D.C.!). Just two days ago (here in Crack Town, of all places!), presidential wannabe McDonald Dump verbally assaulted Hitlery Clinton (whose support of the bloody coup in Hondouras recently led to the murder of Environmental Activist Berta Caceres, which may yet come back to haunt her), suggesting that some "second amendment" remedies to her attack ads against him might be in order. (Blackmailed J. Edgar "the Hoover" once proclaimed that there was "no such thing as the Mafia." Now we get Giuliani- who claims to have "put the Mafia out of business"- speaking out on Trump's behalf; the same Trump whose ties to the Ku Klux Klan and organized crime are well documented.) (The Mafia has been a major player in American politics from Day One. See ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Lamar Waldren and Thom Hartmann for the Final Word on the Kennedy assassinations.) Fux "news" head honcho Roger Ails has joined the Bill Cosby team after decades of sexually harassing female employees (handing the reigns of the Empire over to the murderous Murdochs). The title of this documentary is taken from a statement by former CIA head Michael Hayden, who was speaking of the United $tate$ when he said, "We steal secrets..." Ironic, eh? Freedom of Information doesn't exist, these days: there's a pretty hefty price to be paid for telling the Truth in this company. George Orwell would've understood, as would Franz Kafka.

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.

I found it to be a good documentary but it is not consistent over the 2hrs. It tells the story of Wikileaks & Julian Assange & Peter Manning. But it barely manages to scratch surface of the subjects, does not focus on each subjects properly & switches to something else. In my opinion it would have been great if it focused on one topic say Peter Manning & act of whistle blowing. In the last 10 minutes , 2 guys who were affiliated to Wikileaks talk about whistle blowers. "Whistle blowing is an isolating act. You are doing something which your colleagues and friends won't like you to do or they won't understand. That alienated you further from them. " "In the end everybody is just human, if you are leaking something important to a reporter , something that's really makes a difference, then from a human perspective it is difficult not to get credit for it, no one can tap you on shoulder & say courageous thing you did. & that's the complicated part about it , how do you make sure your source don't compromise themselves" It would have been better if more insight into mind of whistle blower was given to us. That would be something which I have n't seen, (except in The Insider (1999), which is a masterpiece). The interviewees could tell more about how the delicacy of the whole process of getting some classified information, protecting the source of information. The whole material of the documentary, with proper story telling can make a very good movie, but not an excellent documentary. I believe documentaries are supposed to be about insight into something & draw some conclusion. It does provide us with lot of information but less insight.