Ass.

Mr Assange is a westerner. He lives with the privilages that being a westerner provide. He has some wealth, some prosperity, and the freedoms and privilages that living in the 'west'. Unfortunately, Mr Assange like many people in the west today does not understand or comprehend his position. He does not understand that with freedom comes responsibility. When in WW2 Churchill and Roosevelt made the atlantic agreement: -

The Atlantic Charter established a vision for a post-World War II world, despite the fact that the United States had yet to enter the war. The participants hoped that the Soviet Union would adhere as well, after having been attacked by Nazi Germany in June 1941 in defiance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

In brief, the eight points were:

1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom.

2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned.

3. All peoples had a right to self-determination.

4. Trade barriers were to be lowered.

5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare.

6. Freedom from want and fear.

7. Freedom of the seas.

8. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.

This has been a base operative of the free world. Its fair to say that not enough has been completed. However, the US and the UK are still policing the world because frankly there is no one else to do it. And plenty who shirk. Decades later, these post WW2 decisions and building blocks are nominally carried forward and have been built on decade over dacade, and have provided the openness and freedoms where 'the freedom' of the press exists. And where 'HUman rights exists to an extent that human rights NGO's and organisation span the globe. But these have been built off the back of American and British and Allied lives. They were not free. They did not prosper. Many have paid the ultimate price so that people like Mr Assange can have a good life.

Mr Assange has now gone so far, that he claims he has some moral responsibility to out the mixed forces of good in this world, because as he claims, it is for the force of good.

Well Mr Assange, I don't take kindly to you or your antics. I don't take kindly to people of the left who do all their work off the back sof the forces they hate. I hope the Guardian newspaper is ever so proud to be associated today with wikileaks. They deserve each other. I don't take kindly to western citizens who have all the freedoms that it brings, betraying the men and women on the ground who daily fight for every inch to provide the freedom that lets scum like Assange have his nice cosy life. If anyone in our society has an issue with political decisions, one of the things the same men and women on the ground fight for, and die for, is the right for you, and anyone like you who disagrees, to partake in your country's free democratic life. You can become a politician, you can take part in politics and you can change the world. That is the right they go to the worst places in the world and stand in the mud and shit to present and protect. If you do not agree with your politicians, then mr Assange, spend your time hunting down material to base your case and to make it. But you will not and do not make the case by betraying troops on the ground, and placing many people in very dangerous places in pure, unlimited danger by your obscene and stupid obstinate belief that you need to leak this information.

Frankly, you are now getting people murdered. Not just the military personnel - but you are now placing civilians, aid workers, doctors, and many others in danger. People in the west like you Assange have an arrogance that your freedoms and privilages simply exist, and you think that your actions support your freedoms. You claim a serious motivation for you Mr Assange is that you believe deeply in human rights. Lets examine the case. You've supplied Al Quida/Taleban with massive information. It does not matter wether its low, medium or high information, because even low level information of an aid operation has now given the Taleban a town or place they will go and examine and provide a clear example for you to examine your human rights credentials against. Do you suppose that fascist Islamics hold your blessed human rights with any value Mr Assange?

Lets take this further, if your glorious work plays its part in the west leaving or being driven out of places like Afganistan, do you suppose Mr Assange that when the Taleban walk back in, and start cutting off men's noses for not having beards of the correct length - Where women and girls will be regraded back down to being treated worse than animals, and where music and kite flying once more become death sentences - do you suppose Mr Assange that this is an expansion of the human rights you claim you support. Is this the furthering of human rights you claim to support? All of the above have been reduced, and some human rights returned to people in afganistan Mr Assange, but not by you. Not by the Guardian newspaper and the bilge shitheads like Pilger. No, They came back with American Troops, and British Para's and Marines and numerous others. Usually simple men and women from our people's who are not in fact Nazi's as you would paint, but rather the front buffer against the nazi's of the 21st century, and are our Heroes. Our Heroes make errors and mistakes, and are only human. And they are in a war. And the reside in a warzone. And they remain our good guys. And they stand guard so you Mr Assange get to sleep safely at night, and provide you in your infantile stupidity 'the freedom of the press'.

You are not press. You are just some jumped up little Australian shit, who has all the freedom others have provided, and now you believe you have some moral authority to burn those who not only share your values, but actually pay in blood to under-write them. Now you even extend your welcome to the very human rights organisations that you claim to share your ideals with. They happen to suddenly dislike you outing the places and locations of their people, because now the boot is on the other foot. Human rights organisations like you Mr Assange frequently spend their time and energy lambasting the very forces that provide the room and air for them to breath. The claims you do these things for the greater good are a mirage Mr Assange. Hampering human rights in the hell holes of this earth do not further human rights Mr Assange. Getting people who have given up your western lifestyle Mr Assange - to go and help people in the god forsaken corners of this planet, only to be killed by your actions does not further human rights. And supporting even indirectly the scum that is the Taleban, and the many dictators, scumbags, fascists, and Mugabe's of this world does not further human rights Mr Assange.

Nominally, I loosely support the idea of wikileaks. And I support a notion that it can do some good, with targetted and responsible use. As with all freedoms, come responsibility. And in cases like yours Mr Assange, where you and those like you choose to refute those responsibilities, then maybe you should pay a price for that. Getting someone killed makes you an accomplice Mr Assange. And thats the moral truth. As for your claims of supporting Human rights, I fail to see it. Anyone helping the Taleban directly or indirectly does not support human rights. You can't even claim to believe in them if you choose to publish information knowing it will be a viable source for them.

But I do like your arrogane Mr Assange, because you are quickly uncovering the fact for the world to see about how big a piece of shit you really are, and sooner or later, I hope you pay the price for shitting on the freedoms you are so lucky to have, and which is provided to you by people you are not fit to lick the boots of. But I do so hope your friends at the Guardian and elswhere on the left are ever so proud of you today. You really do all deserve one another.

Responsibility

"Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review. Media won't take responsibility. Amnesty won't. What to do?"

So, having obtained a load of documents that belong to someone else, Wikileaks folk are worried that if they make the documents public, a number of people may die as a result. They believe that the responsibility for any such deaths will lie with the military from whom the documents were stolen, Amnesty International and/or the Media (who knows which media) - they believe that anybody but themselves will be responsible for the results of actions which they take.

Blood on your hands...

I support Wikileaks, as all to often what they are leaking is information that should be in the public domain. But putting people's lives in danger crosses a line.

I hope you sleep well with blood on your hands!

Here's a thought

If you don't have the resources to properly redact the files, to protect peoples lives, don't publish them. You have to weigh the benefit of doing so against the cost. It's not anyone else's fault if you don't have the resources to carry out the purpose you have set yourself.

This whole thing is a shame, however, since Wikileaks has previously done some good work. It just goes to show that having more transparency in matters of business and government is generally a good thing, but not automatically so.

Interesting Consequence

If anyone was killed as a result of the disclosure of these documents, I am pretty sure that makes Bradley Manning death-penalty eligible. And I hope he gets it because he will deserve it. So does Assange.

And what does it mean for Assange to "accept responsibility"? What difference could it make? Will it stop the Taliban from killing anyone whose name has been disclosed by Assange and Manning?

I don't think so.

Eventually, the side a person is on, and the side they support, is determined not by self-justifying verbiage, but by which side the person helps. And the side that is being helped here by Assange and Manning is Muslim fundamentalism, theocratic authoritarianism/totalitarianism, and what are surely the most regressive, backwards-looking, and retrograde political ideology in the world today.

Part of the problem or solution

I think the time has come for Wikilieaks to look carefully at this episode and figure out which side it's on, terrorism, or not terrorism.

Basically you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. So quit being part of the problem!

Way to lose the moral high ground, Assange.

You used to have it, but you've squandered it like a hobo who just found a million dollars in a briefcase and went to Las Vegas.

Wikileaks is such an awesome idea. Imagine, a place where people can obliterate the world's dirty secrets from behind the aegis of anonymity; a place where the only casualties are lies, because sources are safe and out of sight--ALL sources, not just the ones who upload the leaks. I thought it was the most awesome thing since pies were invented: A great organ of transparency that could defend democratic civilization in a way that our broken, corrupted systems of checks and balances never could; a thing that puts power in the hands of citizens like nothing else.

And this swinging dick had to screw it all up because he gets such a huge kick out of soapboxing about transparency that he's forgotten that there are some people who actually do have good reasons to keep secrets. Maybe there'd be no need for secrets at all in a perfect world, but this isn't a perfect world. This is a world where snitches get stitches. Some secrets hide wrongdoing from a public that has a right to know; some secrets hide the innocent from wrongdoers who'd just as soon tie the poor bastards to wooden posts and light 'em up with a thirty-round magazine.

The whole point was anonymity! The great merit of Wikileaks was that it protected sources--not just the names of whoever uploaded the information to Wikileaks, but anybody that information might mention who might be put at risk because their names weren't redacted! It wasn't supposed to throw the names of innocent people out there so that Taliban warlords could draw a bead on them! This man is ruining the reputation of the whole idea of a website that protects sources who want to get secrets out, because he clearly doesn't get the part about protecting sources. Shit, the last thing I want to see come out of this is a general public distrust for transparency measures like Wikileaks, but what else are people to think when this ass clown is letting any asshole with an internet connection and a purloined Kalishnakov rifle pay a full metal jacket visit to his neighbor Joe B. Leakerguy?

It looks to me like Assange, drunk on power and a sense of importance, is driving a fine vehicle of democracy on the wrong side of the road, and he's damn well liable to kill people that way unless somebody pulls him over soon, provided he hasn't already decorated the front bumper with the blood of a few dozen informants. The vehicle's a fine thing, but it's a powerful thing, the driver is a jackass who ought to spend at least a weekend in the pokey to think about what he's done with it. The worst activists are the ones who get such a kick out of being important that they forget the rest of the gig.

Think of the informants!

The Wikileaks spokesman does make a good point: Amnesty International will not go against the core interests of those trying to impose liberal peace (as arguably their aims are one and the same).

The whole "think of the informants" angle is a rather flimsy attempt at damage mitigation in the media arena. As the thorough reporter he is, perhaps Mr. Williams could present us with some cold facts as to the extent to which the information being released actually represents an objective risk (no need to prove actual damage) to anyone one the ground.

Solution for redaction

The only way that WikiLeaks can effectively redact all sensitive information from the leaked US military documents is by using reliable redaction software.

A leading redaction software product created specifically for projects just like this one is called RapidRedact. The software allows any amount of documents to be automatically redacted based on rules defined by users, quickly and efficiently.

For more information, visit www.rapidredact.com