back to article Wikileaks falls out with human rights groups

Wikileaks faces criticism from human rights groups over its publishing of the names of intelligence sources in Afghanistan. Organisations including Amnesty International wrote to the site's spokesman Julian Assange urging better redaction of Secret files, both already public and planned to be released, according to the Wall …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Unhappy

Ah crap

Man, it made me so much happier knowing there was a wikileaks in the world. Now they might be turning evil... :(

Thats sad

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Not so much evil...

...as arrogant. Comes to every crusader sooner or later. The cause becomes more important than the means. No worries, after Assange is plunged into obscurity another will come along, do good for a time and then implode into his own navel.

8
1

Quango

> another will come along, do good for a time and then implode into his own navel.

Sums up Amnesty, which is now a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization.

4
0
Silver badge
WTF?

SRSLY?

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

Srsly? You expected the Pentagon to help you release secret Pentagon files? My guess is that their answer would be "they're secret files. Don't release any of them."

4
0
Unhappy

Nice going there, getting people killed...

Well well well, whod've thought I'd agree with Amnesty International on something.

I guess we're agreeing that Wikileaks are a***holes.

Shocking...

I guess posting confidential documents wasn't so bad until innocent people started getting killed...

2
5
FAIL

"What to do?"

Erm, how about perhaps witholding publication until you knew for sure the docs were properly purged of identifying information?

Just a thought.

10
0
FAIL

if only it were that simple

Who decides what 'properly purged' is?

Wikileaks: the second definition for freetard

0
12
Thumb Up

Re: If only it were that simple

You're absolutely right, but my point is that if others have managed to extract identifying data so quickly and easily from what has already been published then it is difficult for WL/Assange to claim they even made an adequate effort in the first place and therefore justify publication, much less Assange's subsequent tweeted (oh lord) implication that blame for that failure lies with other organisations.

4
2
FAIL

WTF??

"Following the exchange, yesterday a message was posted on Wikileaks' Twitter feed saying the site, which claims it has 800 volunteers, needs $700,000 to conduct a "harm-minimization review". A later post added: "Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review. Media won't take responsibility. Amnesty won't. What to do?""

Were Media or Amnesty responsible for posting the info?

some one else is to blame, yet again.

thoughtless bastards.

7
0

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.

21
10

re: Ass

Thank you DS 1, I could not have put it better.

5
0
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Ass

Wow.

Not sure whether to applaud or sit here aghast. A few good points mixed with a whole morass of vitriolic insults, dangerously false statements and borderline ignorant generalisation. You're not Rush Limbaugh are you? Actually no, you can't be. I've never heard Limbaugh make a good point.

Whatever your reply to this, don't expect another from me. I'm just guessing here, but you have approximately 9000 hours per day more free time than me and are perfectly willing to spend every last minute of it arguing on the internet.

PS: It's "privilege"

9
4
WTF?

RE: Atlantic Chart Trumpeter

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

- No need for territorial gains if you acquire enough land space for your Army bases, and keep control of the economic resources by your "international" enterprises.

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

- Only if the wishes of the people are expressed by the sector of the native elite that has been bought by us.

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

- But self determination claims it will be supported only if the outcome fragmentation benefit our quest for any of the points above.

4. Trade barriers were to be lowered.

- Multinationals loves low trade barriers and it is good if my average middle class family with annual income in the tens of thousands of dollar/pounds economically compete without barriers with 2nd and 3rd world families with annual income 10 to 100 lower.

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

- just read this :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html

6. Freedom from want and fear.

- that is call Buddhism and is nothing like our new dogmas: Consumerism and Sensationalist Media.

7. Freedom of the seas.

- yeah, we don't like Pirates(the real ones TM) and most of high value resources in high seas required a hefty inversion that only multinationals are able to obtain.

8. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.

- Said the country with the military budget bigger than the rest of the nations combined and involve in more overseas wars that any other nation during the post WWII period.

Yes we don't need old school colonialism when Neocolonialism do the trick even better.

6
3

Yeah, you could

I was typing at high speed hence the errors.

To the comment below yours, yes, thanks for the spelling correction. I'm sure sans spelling - you got the drift.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

ASS-CLOWN

is the new ASS.

0
0
FAIL

trite

"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"

If your average military Joe was an idealist who'd signed up to altruistically make the world a better place, rather than some exam-failing puppy-hurling mouthbreather with a consipcuous lack of more appealing options, you might have a point. Not fit to lick their boots? Don't be so egregiously stupid. These people are hired to enforce the whims of the society that pays them, whatever they might be; they do not operate on an untouchable moral highround, are not beyond criticism, and can f*cking well clean their boots with polish rather than the adoring spittle of sycophantic 'civvies'.

Let's be clear; there's no evidence that Assange's oversight/error/arrogance has thus far contributed to any civilian deaths, and there's no suggestion whatsoever that he's directly killed any. Can the same be said of the armed forces? No? Then let's maintain a little perspective here.

20 thumbs up for this peurile, sub-sixthform rant? Heavens above...

2
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Assange is just an arrogant egocentric ass

who doesn't give a damn about the people whose lives he may risk or trouble he may cause so long he can bang his right-on drum and stick it to the man about "cover ups" and government secrets or anything else in the sights of his juvenile political agenda. His childish authority baiting is just pathetic and his dismissal of an organisation such as amnesty that has far better credentials on fighting for justice than his piss pot little website shows him up for the silly immature prat that he is.

4
4
Big Brother

And all the pocket-Mother Theresas put their oar in...

Or, alternatively, being the subject of a many-sided smear campaign that our gloriously easily led friends in the charities are beign unwittingly dragegd into. Have you ever dealt with any of the Red Cross/World Vision (especially) lot? As dumb as a box of rocks.

Let's see what comes out in the wash. After all, it's not like most of the world media is as honest and agenda-free as this here august organ.

3
2
WTF?

What are you on about?

This isn't about your dealings with various charities or the intelligence quotient of their workers, tin-foil hat 'smear campaigns' funded by the US government or whatever. The story is about people in Afghanistan being put at serious risk of death because they were informants.

You know, some people in this country say we need to get out of Afghanistan and let them deal with it themselves. The people that were acting as informers were probably trying to help make their country better and taking some responsibility and doing just that.

Then some tosser comes along and publishes their details on the web for all to see without realising the consequences. Including the very people most likely to hunt them down and execute them.

I'm with AI on this one, he's a complete twat and publishing that type of information was a massive screwup, should never have happened and hopefully won't again.

6
2
Joke

Applause

Yes Sir, that's a well-balanced, informed, and highly intellectual comment there.

Or not.

0
0

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.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

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!

3
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Really, what a nob.

But a fine example of why free speech is not without responsibilities.

Seriously, Amnesty offered to discuss the matter with him, and he releases a statement that accuses them of doing nothing (to clear up the mess he has made)?

5
1
Silver badge

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.

3
1
Pint

Stable door horse bolted.

Not wanting to take sides, but do we have any cast iron guarantees that only Wikileaks has the data? If something has been leaked to Wikileaks, doesn't it stand to reason that it's probably been leaked elsewhere. I thought that was the whole reason IT depts keep pointing out "leaked information cannot be contained, if it could it wouldn't be leaked"

It's a bit like "The Sun" who say "we've bought a government laptop that was left on a train we are keeping the data on it secure to save lives". What they don't say is that laptop was found by a passenger, who after playing with it for a while gave it to the train guard, who put it in the office, which was then picked up by the cleaner that evening, who took it down the pub and sold it to his mate, who upon powering it up figured out it was a lost government laptop, and then showed it to all his mates complaining how insecure government laptops are, eventually one of his mates says "you'll make some cash if you sell it to a newspaper". At that point the laptop has passed through a dozen hands, and you cant prove that no-one in that chain took a copy. You have to assume they have.

To me same goes for wikileaks. They have got the data because it leaked. Someone else probably has it too, so accusing wikileaks of leaking leaked data seems a bit daft.

3
3
Bronze badge
FAIL

Arrogant prick

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

Howabout consider the consequences of your actions BEFORE you take them, and take responsibility for them YOURSELF afterwards?

6
1
Thumb Up

to sum up....

For me, this quote from DS1 perfectly sums it all up :-

"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."

7
0
Thumb Up

Tell you what....

How about the governmental f***wits didn't take us into afghanistan in the first place??!

The one place even Alexander the Great sensibly left alone and has floored 4 different world empires at least...

If there wasnt an 'Afghan campaign' then there wouldnt be a need to release all these documents saying what a load of lying government tripe is getting soldiers killed needlessly.

Its common knowledge that the 9/11 fiasco can be laid at Saudi Arabias door - whether it was supported openly or as a 'dont ask, dont tell' project by the PHB's out there is really the only question now... so tell me again why we are bashing Iraq (formerly the *only* secular muslim state in the area & a former US ally) and Afghanistan (cuddly fundamentalists to their friends, rabid death to anyone else) for something they had nothing to do with - having conveniently given the personages involved more than enough time to leg it - sorta like all those members of the bin laden family that were spirited out of the USA immediately post 9/11?

I think its brilliant what Wikileaks are doing and to be honest - if you are stupid/greedy/whatever (delete as applicable) enough to take US/UK money to spy on your own people in a place where the Geneva Convention's only use would be as nice soft toilet paper - you deserve whatever you get if you are found out.

You can bet if Afghan spies were found in the US they wouldnt be sent home with a nice cup of coffee and a hug, so why are we whining that its any different vice versa.

Publish and be damned, my friend, publish and be damned!

5
8
FAIL

You are wrong

1. Alexander the Great did conquer Afghanistan, and three cities were named Alexandria (one of which is now called Kandahar).

2. The people being killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan are not "spies" - they are schoolteachers, doctors, aid workers, tribal elders and government officials. I suppose if you work on the Taliban definition then they are spies, but then you're a barbaric idiot.

3. If Afghan spies were caught in the US they would be put on trial and jailed, not shot like dogs along with all their family.

I love Wikileaks, but they've fucked up big time here, and they need to accept responsibility.

11
1
FAIL

you seem to miss the point

These "spys" are not spying on thje govt, they are informing on terrorist working to dedstabilize the govt and who are killing anyone who disagrees with them.

3
1
Silver badge

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.

4
4

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!

5
3
Go

really

So, we (you and me) are responsible for killings thousands of people in Afganistan, did not have the guts to actually stop it. Someone uncover what is actually war crimes. But, realizing we have a responsability we pretend to ignore it and feed our hyprocrit remarks to someone that at least is trying to uncover the truth and make it stop.

What is actually going on in Aghanistan is very nasty businees, we are there to pour money on one of the biggest private armies on the world (no, not US soldiers but Halliburton et al) that have absolutely nothing to gain by having peace there and definitively you own security is their last thought. And as a secondary target, well, production of opium has come back to its pre taliban levels. Not that there is a relationship between those two besides being huge money generators.

So suddenly the remote possibility that these documents may actually cause the death of some people (and of course, the only possibility that deaths happen is that those documents were leaked, not that people actually already know who works for whom in there) comes and becomes the only issue discussed. Summary executions that were so common place during the Vietnam war, are now the new Afghan policy. And nothing about it: no propestrous, morally inflated comment that somehow that is actually wrong. The fact that soldiers are killing blindly innocent people, that "Intelligence" (both meanings of the word) is close to nil there, afghan sources are mainly self retributory or cohersed. If history serves to anything, think of europe during the WWII Nazi occupation, most of the collaborators did it so to either exact vengeance, to protect their close ones from an invading army or to gain someone else property (family included). And please do not start with the "we are better than them".

So really, does anybody has a gram of something between the ears to actually think and ask the proper questions?

This is a unwarranted conflict (not war otherwise, soldiers would actually have proper medical care when they are back); actually by the US military manual this is terrorism at its best : low intensity warfare. But of course, we can not be guilty of anything (we have high moral standards, do not kill civilians, and have so much respect for others): the problem must be the others. When one starts to believe its own lies, it is the end of intelligence (mankind?)and the beginning of dilusion (barbary?). Perhaps, a good dose of reality might save some of us...

Laws have been enacted, actions have been made in our name for our security, and yet, this feels like one of Orwell's books. Terror and guilt are not always where we are pointed too.

4
1
Megaphone

Hand wringing

"So, we (you and me) are responsible for killings thousands of people in Afganistan, did not have the guts to actually stop it. Someone uncover what is actually war crimes. But, realizing we have a responsability we pretend to ignore it and feed our hyprocrit remarks to someone that at least is trying to uncover the truth and make it stop."

Hypocrisy or not, two wrongs don't make a right.

1
1

Don't deflect the blame.

The thing of concern here is that something like a properly-run Wikileaks could potentially avert such disasters in the future. We only went to war after plenty of fearmongering, gossip, and patriotic angst, all steeped in ignorance.

We're pissed off about this because Wikileaks looked like such a great way to burst that bubble of ignorance in the future by letting inconvenient truths come to the surface, perhaps at the expense of some warmonger with a blue suit and a power tie--and now the guy in charge of it is ruining the reputation of that vital freedom of speech.

You're right that the blame for these wars ultimately rests with the people of the democratic states that chose to fight them, but what's the average citizen to do when it's already on? No amount of Daily Kos articles or whatever you mean to do is likely to stop a war after it's started. For all your concern, what did you accomplish? By the time the troops are on their way, it's probably too late. The war was decided already, and decided on fear and ignorance--decided in precisely the information vacuum that something like Wikileaks could potentially disrupt. Thomas Jefferson once said that whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government. That's what's at stake here: An important means of informing the public is being driven into the dirt by a man who doesn't recognize the danger of wielding such a powerful instrument irresponsibly.

You say a good dose of reality might save some of us? Well, how do you suppose folks are going to get it--gelcaps from the pharmacy at Wal-Mart?

2
1
Big Brother

Assange est dans l'arbre

Do the Wikileaks documents name names from both sides, I wonder?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

In the tree???

You do well to wonder. Matter of fact, have you seen ANY names at all in any of the already published data? I'd love to see one example of any of this supposedly "compromising" information (lovely spin they put on it btw: "no it's not the embarrassment we worry about Mister, it's those poor informants of us we care so much for").

They need to get a better spin doctor out there.

0
1

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.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

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.

1
1
Stop

Dead Afghans (or not)

Is there any evidence that Afghans (or anyone) have been killed or put at risk by this WikiLeak or is everyone just taking it as fact since the Pentagon and those with a vested interest in seeing a takedown and closing of WikiLeaks said so?

I would imagine that amongst tens of thousands of records there will be some information which may suggest some redaction is needed but does anyone know how many exactly?

On a sidenote - What of the US's responsibility not to put Afghans at risk by including their details in the first place? Why are they not referenced by codenames? This information could equally be in the hands of the Taliban Wikileak or not.

The underlying message is that the US cannot or will not protect its sources and you are a fool to become a source. It is not like this is the first time it has happened.

There is a parallel here with McKinnon's case - The US fails in its duties then turns blame on those who expose those failings. Some in the US have already proposed "military assets" be brought to bear on Assagne - a clear case of wanting to shoot the messenger.

1
1
Black Helicopters

Astroturfing?

Something looks out of place here judging by the sense and, more tellingly, the soundbite style of quite a few comments.

1
2
Rob
Stop

Aye, I second that theory...

... nuff said

1
2
WTF?

Re: Astroturfing

Don't talk wet!

I don't think anyone's is in any doubt that certain people will be frantically stoking the fire of this one to get as much anti-Wikileaks mileage out of it as possible. That said, you have only to read even the most fawning and positive interview with Assange to understand that the man is an arrogant dick. How could this shitstorm he has kicked up be to ANYONE's benefit if it ends up with no change in Coalition policy, more Afghans dead and Wikileaks' reputation badly - perhaps permanently - tarnished?

No I don't think there's any astroturfing going on here. That's just borderline conspiracy-theorist-level paranoia. The people you are talking about do their work much higher up the tree than Reg comments forums.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Peace du pain.

So wikileaks and their wierdo published confidential documents and now Afgans will die but that's also what the U.S. government did. Transparency is good, we all have a right to peace and those who would take it should be removed including Afgans and Amnesty international.

0
1
RRX

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

0
1
Dead Vulture

Have you...

verified it with the Amnesty and other agencies? Amnesty seems to deny they issued any official statement on the matter

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums