15 ms·

> Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused.

> Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused. Which is perfectly understandable: why should the US government tell Wikileaks exactly which names in some leaked documents are the names of actual US government informants? That would be stupid. If that's stupid then complaining asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid and gives the U.S. no right to complain. Especially when top secret is used to conceal war crimes. > Assange then chose to release all the material anyway Not publishing war crimes because those who commited them refuse to cooperate in redacting names would be a great way for the Pentagon to make sure their crimes stay hidden. In fact it appears that was their goal in not cooperating. > Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names. Newspapers were NOT in the same position. They published the leaks but Pentagon started cooperating with them by then. It's remarkable that people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals who did not face any consequences and laughed about while murdering civilians including journalists.

pdonis 6y ago
> asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid He should have had the good judgment to redact all names even without being asked to. (Or at least all names that he didn't know belonged to people whose lives would not be put at risk by their publication.) He didn't. > Newspapers were NOT in the same position. It is true that newspapers (and other "mainstream" media organizations) have a special relationship with governments (and note that I'm not saying it's right that they do, only that as a matter of fact they do), so they aren't in exactly the same position as Wikileaks. That still does not excuse Wikileaks putting people's lives at risk by publishing their names. > people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange, so you have no basis for even making any such comparison. Also, I'm not blaming Assange for publishing the material itself. I'm blaming him for publishing people's names and putting their lives at risk. As I've already said, he could have published the material without publishing the names. He chose not to.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > He should have had the good judgment to redact all names So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on? > I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know, as was already suggested. Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. If there issue is that high ranking officials aren't being held accountable, there's no reason to publish the names of some random agent.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know That's not as easy as it sounds. Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with. The actual shooters should perhaps also not be redacted. At least not fully. > Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. They do this by being cozy with the Pentagon and asking them exactly for what WikiLeaks has asked them for. The difference is the Pentagon's not going to ignore an email from the NYT. It did ignore WikiLeaks.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with Investigative journalism is a difficult profession. Yet people manage. Throwing your hands up is a disservice to the profession. Calling someone who does so a journalist is a disservice to actual investigative journalists.
        AsyncAwait 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid He should have had the good judgment to redact all names even without being asked to. (Or at least all names that he didn't know belonged to people whose lives would not be put at risk by their publication.) He didn't. > Newspapers were NOT in the same position. It is true that newspapers (and other "mainstream" media organizations) have a special relationship with governments (and note that I'm not saying it's right that they do, only that as a matter of fact they do), so they aren't in exactly the same position as Wikileaks. That still does not excuse Wikileaks putting people's lives at risk by publishing their names. > people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange, so you have no basis for even making any such comparison. Also, I'm not blaming Assange for publishing the material itself. I'm blaming him for publishing people's names and putting their lives at risk. As I've already said, he could have published the material without publishing the names. He chose not to.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> He should have had the good judgment to redact all names So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on? > I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know, as was already suggested. Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. If there issue is that high ranking officials aren't being held accountable, there's no reason to publish the names of some random agent.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know That's not as easy as it sounds. Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with. The actual shooters should perhaps also not be redacted. At least not fully. > Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages. They do this by being cozy with the Pentagon and asking them exactly for what WikiLeaks has asked them for. The difference is the Pentagon's not going to ignore an email from the NYT. It did ignore WikiLeaks.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with Investigative journalism is a difficult profession. Yet people manage. Throwing your hands up is a disservice to the profession. Calling someone who does so a journalist is a disservice to actual investigative journalists.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago