might need a VPN
Assange actually comes off quite well in this, though it seemed that the interviewer was perhaps a bit biased.
I think that Wikileaks really betrayed source confidence by not properly redacting information in some of their documents, and also by publishing documents that were not related to government deception. Assange is a douchebag, but the organization is a great idea in principle. Manning is a hero.
Not specific ones that I'm aware of, but that's not really the point. I'm sure that lists such as "international sites that the consulates consider vital to national security" were not things that Manning wanted to have made public, as there was no injustice committed by keeping those secret.
I haven't verified it, but the reporter in that interview did that there were names of several hundred Afghani collaberators released in some of those publications, and that Taliban operatives have come out openly to say they will be killed. I really don't know if that's true or if it has happened, but the point is that none of that information should have been released.
The video of the American soldiers murdering people though, as well as the American "rules of engagement", that should have been released, and I'm sure it's things like that, rather than the names of collaborators, that Manning wanted public.
Well, I guess he is doing a great job in releasing some secrets. How many times have we got some documentaries done by top journalist revealing something that was conspirated? Journalist job is to go deep and dig and expose the truth...
However as 莫明 said Assange went out of the wikileak spirit, they wanted some information filtered, that's y there is disagreement between him and his collabo.
I don`t think there were any documents from Afghanistan that was higher classified than what any US officer would have access to read. Which leads me to believe that it`s not that hard for the Taliban to get a hold of this documents, and that they had access to uncensored documents long before wikileaks published them.
These documents are not interesting for the Taliban. They are interesting to read for you and me.
Joakim, maybe of the half million people with access to the server there were some who sold information to the Taliban. I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect, but it wouldn't surprise me either. But again, that's not the point.
Of the half million people with access to the server, only one of them had the decency to say "Hey, it's really disgusting how we're murdering people, maybe the world should know about it so we get pressure to correct our behavior."
It's really a shame to lump the latter in with the former. Most of those things are "interesting to read" in the same sense as the National Enquirer is "interesting to read". Private information concerning other people that doesn't affect me and is none of my business. I maintain that Assange is a douche.
"Private information concerning other people that doesn't affect me and is none of my business. I maintain that Assange is a douche."
I don`t see how you can conclude that this documents are "private information".
We are debating about documents that are made by they who we have elected to govern us. And many of those documents clearly indicates that they are not doing the job we have hired them to do.
What Assange have done is to show us this fact. If it wasn`t Assange who did it, then it would have been somebody else. What is douche about that?
Are we talking about different documents? I strongly suppose the dissemination of the documents that show the government is not doing it's job.
My issue is with all the other documents that are released - documents like lists of critical targets and names of collaborators, which are about as relevant to most of us a the masturbatory habits of Chairman Carrot. Maybe they're fun to giggle over, but they're not critical for us to know about. Specifically, the issue I have is that I don't believe that Manning intended for those documents to be released. Unfortunately, he'll probably never have the freedom to speak to this issue, so I'm making some assumptions here.
I have to say, if a source says "here's a block of information that proves X government is doing something terrible," and entrusts a publisher with that information, it would be common decency for the publisher to reveal the relevant things and keep the rest of it confidential.
If someone simply stole a bunch of intelligence data and published it to show how incompetant the guardians of it were, I think that's funny, not douchy. But here, Assange is misusing information that he was entrusted with because he "likes watching them squirm."
assange is never a publisher of any information in the first place. you might wanna get the idea of wikileaks first. the sources themselves can upload information in any way they like and newspapers and tv-stations are the ones who broadly publish parts of it (and profit) thereafter.
the point we really can see is that the reactions of some of the ruling elites reveal that all the "democratic values" are not that highly valued by them... and it's up to everyone themselves to stand up for them! but maybe better not in beijing right now ;)
Bernard, that's not what happened in this case. I'm aware that that's how it's supposed to work though, and it seems like a good idea to me.