Amnesty Attacks Assange

Last week, I argued that Wikileaks “editor-in-chief” Julian Assange is many things—hacker, Jackie Rodgers Jr. lookalike, paranoiac—but he’s most certainly isn’t a journalist. The real journalists at The New York Times, who mined the leaked data for stories while protecting the names of American intelligence sources on the ground in Afghanistan, denied that they worked collaboratively with Assange. “He’s making it sound like this was some sort of journalistic enterprise between WikiLeaks, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel,” said Times reporter Eric Schmidt, citing the other news organizations that were provided with a first glimpse of the material, “and that’s not what it was."

And now human rights groups are having a go at Assange, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication

Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and the International Crisis Group signed the letter (delivered via email), citing concerns that Afghan informants named in the document dump will face the brutal retribution of the Taliban. Assange responded by asking Amnesty International to “provide staff to help redact the names of Afghan civilians,” a pointless exercise now that the documents already exist online, unredacted.

Amnesty expressed interest in assisting, though warned that they are constrained by limited resources, and suggested a conference call to discuss the issue further. Assange responded, via email, with a threat: “I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal." On his Twitter feed, Assange told his followers to not “be fooled on the ‘human rights groups’”—scare quotes are in the original—because they are “US led.” That any of the signatories of the letter are “US led” is demonstrably false, something any journalist worth his salt would know.

And Assange’s claim that the brave people behind the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission are “primary (sic) funded by the occupying forces of Afghanistan” is designed to mislead, to suggest that the group is a propaganda arm of the United States military (the biggest single donor is the government of Canada, incidentally. Finland, Denmark, and USAID also underwrite a large portion of the group’s budget). Read the group’s latest report on the dire conditions in Afghanistan’s prisons and detention centers to get a flavor of their work.

Assange is, stupidly, digging in his heels, first blaming the United States military for not better protecting the sources he exposed and now attacking Amnesty International for not providing free labor to help in redacting already released documents. As I said last week, I am generally pro-leak but this isn't the guy I want as the representative of government transparency.

One more wrinkle in the story: According to an article in Sydsvenska Dagbladet (in terrible translation here), Assange’s claims, made ad nauseum in speeches and articles, that he and his sources are fully protected by Swedish law, where Wikileaks’ servers are located, is slightly more complicated than he lets on. Håkan Rustand, deputy to Sweden’s minister of justice, tells the paper that “it is too simple to claim that all Wikileaks sources are totally protected in Sweden.” The reasons for this are rather complicated, but Assange apparently fancies himself an expert in Swedish law, tweeting that “The article [in Sydsvenskan] currently being spun (sic) about WikiLeaks source protection legalities is false." He apparently knows something the justice ministry doesn't, so stay tuned.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fructose||

    That's right Moynihan. Assange isn't a journalist, at least by the modern definition.

    Journalist, noun: A filthy parasite who earns a living by fellating the power-hungry, warmongering, authoritarian ruling class.

    See also journolist.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    "journolist" was fellating the surrender monkey currently in chief.

  • G-Love||

    JACKIE ROGERS JR. $100,000 JACKPOT WAD!!!

  • ||

  • BeltwayLurker||

    This is so last weekend. How about the Queens flight attendant? The north Korean artillary barrage and capture of a south Korean fishing boat? The HPOA chick quitting work? Strippers protesting Ohio Church? something new!

  • ||

    HPOA chick quitting work

    Lamest shit in the history of the internet.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Nothing wrong with you people who prefer the flight steward story. Your bitterness is odd.

  • ||

    It was just some lame, clearly fake stunt. Gay.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    The coppers did not find your gay friend's stunt fake, see? If you hid the HPOA from your gaze, don't even try the stripper story.

  • ||

    Assange is an enemy. He's also the same piece of sh!t who edited a previous video leak to make the U.S. military look bad. String him up!

  • ||

    Somebody been' digesting the propaganda.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Somebody don' know what words mean.

  • Yonemoto||

    "(the biggest single donor is the government of Canada, incidentally.)"

    1) EVEN WORSE.

    2) WTF Moynihan? Isn't Canada one of the occupying forces? Technically correct. The best kind.

  • Yonemoto||

    3) digging in his heals

    Well at least he wasn't toeing the lion.

  • Yonemoto||

    Sorry, when I get upset with the content I either don't post or get annoying. It's incredibly childish of me, but then again, reason won't let me delete my post made in the heat of passion.

  • Jeffersonian||

    A self-justifying narcissist.

  • Yonemoto||

    Yes, but so are most libertarians, self included.

  • Government of Wolves||

    Yeah, but most libertarians are about protecting people fighting neo-medieval zealots, not hanging them out to dry on an ego trip.

  • ||

    No, most libertarians are about protecting those who are doing what they can to topple the empire. Paid informants of the empire do not have a right to keep that secret.

  • Government of Wolves||

    Even if you think that the US shouldn't be involved, anyone who wants the Taliban gone is on the side of the angels. If you're going to support the actions of the Taliban, who executed a pregnant widow after giving her 200 lashes, I really don't see how you call yourself a libertarian.

    You can oppose war without willing our flagrantly, revoltingly evil enemy to win.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Absolutely right, G.o.W.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Some people are into the whipping snuff scene. Not me, mind you. It's those people.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Hence, this is why mercenaries and assassinations should have been the rule of the day. Alas, it's too late to try something affordable that might have had a better chance of working. Oh well. Once we have terminators we should be able to wipe the Taliban out in 2156.

    On another note, a lot of horrible shit goes down everywhere on par with executing pregnant women for the hell of it. If that is our litmus test for invasion and occupation, I don't see an end to it.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Yes, sweetie, nihilism is comforting.

  • ||

    ya but the leaks reveal what all cynics knew. The US supports both sides in a war...they funded the ISI even though we knew they were supporting the Taliban....and oops the US government also directly supported the Taliban, this is just another instance that the empire fellating journ-o-list will ignore

  • BeltwayLurker||

    I thought he meant the wikileaks guy, not you.

  • SIV||

    but he’s most certainly isn’t a journalist.

    Why am I not surprised Michael Moynihahn is a "journalist" who wants to decide who can call themselves a journalist.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If he's not journalist, as you keep asserting, why hold him to the standards of one?

    If all he is is a source, why hold him responsible for not redacting names according to journalistic standards? Since when is it a source's job to do a journalists work?

    You've beat the hell out of this. Perhaps it's time to move on.

  • ||

    He wants to make sure that the world into which he so desperately seeks entry knows that he is prepared to swallow hard.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    I hear, on good authority, that he already has his monogrammed martini glass.

  • ||

    Since when is it a source's job to do a journalists work?

    A source does not publish his data on the internet for all to see. This guy is neither a source nor a journalist. He is just a cowardly fuck who thinks his opinions are correct and airing them makes the world a better place. A typical do-gooder. In typical do-gooder fashion, a lot of innocent people are fucked in the process.

  • ||

    Assange is a hero in my book - and if his leaks get us out of the great game faster than sooo much the better - but based on what I've seen of his personality I have to wonder if he just isn't a libertarian in disguise - him and Rothbard would get along like a storm...

  • People his leaks will kill||

    We're no so crazy about him.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Assange is a piece of shit in my book.

  • ||

    Why is he such a piece of shit in your book?

  • Government of Wolves||

    He put innocents at risk needlessly because he was on an ego trip.

    Fairly simple, no?

  • ||

    Paid informants of the state do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  • Government of Wolves||

    You'd apply that to paid informants against sex traffickers and other scum of the earth, then?

    And I don't think your personal definition of 'reasonable' carries much moral weight.

  • ||

    The scum of the earth are those who fellate the state.

  • Government of Wolves||

    Really? I would have thought the scum of the earth were those who violate others' human rights. Like the Taliban...

  • Anonymous||

    Like the State. So the State and the Taliban are scum. Yes?

  • ||

    "I would have thought the scum of the earth were those who violate others' human rights. Like the Taliban..." ya and those who pay the Taliban 43 million dollars are also bad...and those who refuse to report it.

  • Jim Treacher||

    I'm with Libertymike: Three cheers for the Taliban!

  • Ron L||

    libertymike|8.10.10 @ 8:57PM|#
    "Paid informants of the state..."
    Citation required.

  • Government of Wolves||

    Damn straight.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Ditto.

  • Cata||

    +1

  • DG||

    Rothbard respected human life. I doubt he would be down with innocent people getting killed just to further his own goals.

  • Yonemoto||

    FUCK that shit. Assange has not pulled the trigger on anyone. If the Taliban kills any source, two people are to blame.

    1) The taliban, for actually fucking doing the killing.

    2) The US, for not offering the source amnesty after their privacy has been compromised.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Assange has not pulled the trigger on anyone.

    Neither did Hitler. Now screech "Godwin!" like a good little drone.

  • ||

    3) The US for invading the country in the first place. I wonder how many innocent civilians died compared to the potential deaths of those named in the report...

  • Jim Treacher||

    Unfortunately for spur, his book sits on the shelf, unread. Forever.

  • Duckworth-Lewis||

    "As I said last week, I am generally pro-leak but this isn't the guy I want as the representative of government transparency."

    I personally don't like the Paul family, Beck, and their whole right wing crew being the public face of libertarianism but sadly I'm not an omnipotent God and I'll work to support Paul if it means a bit more libertarianism hanging around...

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    As I said last week, I am generally pro-leak but this isn't the guy I want as the representative of government transparency.

    "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

  • Lord Ballsac||

    I must have blocked that shit out.

    (Vomits for 20 minutes).

  • Fluffy||

    Personally, I would be delighted if the US government would abduct Moynihan and hold him in a torture chamber somewhere, and if someone leaked the information about his fate to the New York Times, it would be screamingly funny if they sat on it and refused to publish it "to protect informants" and "for reasons of national security".

    Dick.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Your post makes no sense to me.

  • Ron L||

    What Art-P.O.G said; care to render that comment in understandable English?

  • ||

    Of course, that's just a little contrived ...

  • Government of Wolves||

    So you're coming down on the side of allowing the psychos who shot a pregnant widow after lashing her 200 times access to more innocents. This isn't about whether you support the war, or what the government is doing in that war. It's about protecting innocent people when doing so is easy, just a matter of blacking out a few names.

    And by the way, morally, what the US Government does, as bad as it is and as much as it needs to stop, is not close to comparable to the Taliban.

    Dick.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    In their world, helping the US and our allies is a crime of which no punishment is too vile. To them, the informants deserve it.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I think you're right there, Lurker.

  • ||

    the governemnt funded ISI who they knew was funding the Taliban...it is in the leaked documents and most people already knew that...but this makes it official...so if you really hate teh Taliban you should be pretty mad at the bullshit that is our foreign policy.

  • Fluffy||

    Until every action of our government is undertaken in good faith, I no longer recognize any request for secrecy made by any government representative for any reason whatsoever.

    The very first time the Bush administration defended itself politically by asserting national security privilege in lawsuits, you lost me.

    When all of the Abu Ghraib and Bagram prison photos Obama has are released, we can talk about secrecy again.

    The fact is that every last one of you pro-war fuckers is a lying piece of shit when you claim this is all about the poor, poor informants. That's just the datum you latched on to because it put the best face on your REAL position, namely: that the government is allowed to lie to the public and declare entire areas of its operation secret if that helps it keep up "public morale". What you're REALLY pissed about is that information became available to the public without politicians deciding that it would be "useful" for us to know it. You were going to latch on to any criticism you could contrive in order to support your system of "managed public morale".

    My position is that the war policy is up for public debate every minute of every day, and to the extent that information is deliberately withheld from the public that debate is corrupted - and to the extent the war policy debate is corrupted, we cease to have a legitimate government.

    Look at the information in the files indicating that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. That's information that war on terror opponents were absolutely entitled to have and to present to the public as part of the ongoing political debate about war on terror policy. Hiding that information corrupts the democratic process and is absolutely unacceptable.

  • ||

    That's a lot of wind there, yet nothing addressing the outing of the informants ...

  • Sidd Finch||

    or the NGO complaints

  • Government of Wolves||

    And on the issue of redacting the informants' names, Fluffy says nothing.

    It's so easy to argue when you argue with the people in your head rather than the ones in the real world.

  • Fluffy||

    As I said below, in the current environment of absurdly manipulative state control of the flow of information, I can totally understand why someone would dump raw data in a completely uncontrolled way.

    If someone handed me a file labeled "Covert CIA Activity in Iran" or something similar, my first instinct would be to put it up as a torrent before I lost access to it. I might only have a brief opportunity to do so before that information was suppressed again forever. I wouldn't say to myself, "Hey, let me comb through this and judge every last piece of information myself before I release this."

    Would that be careless? Maybe. But after a few decades of lies, the state really has no right to complain if I act in haste.

  • Government of Wolves||

    We're not talking about the State's right to complain - we're talking about the right of the Afghan informants and their families to complain. Learn to distinguish between the State and innocent people - it's an important distinction for a libertarian.

    The way you act towards the Afghans really isn't that different to that of the Pentagon. What's the Phrase?

    "They're only a pawn in your game."

  • ||

    But after a few decades of lies, the state really has no right to complain if I act in haste.


    Somehow the worst of anti-war types always reveal their complete ignorance of history. I wonder when do you imagine the government told the truth?

  • Fluffy||

    Governments are always deceptive and self-serving, but the limits of both of those attributes wax and wane.

    And in this instance, I was referring specifically to deceptive government requests for secrecy - which are obviously much greater in number now than in the past, if only because the number of things kept secret has expanded by several orders of magnitude since 1941.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    OPSEC is also much more difficult now than it was in 1941 AFAIK.

  • AA||

    "The fact is that every last one of you pro-war fuckers is a lying piece of shit when you claim this is all about the poor, poor informants."

    So you completely ignore everything everyone says. Nice.

    "Look at the information in the files indicating that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. That's information that war on terror opponents were absolutely entitled to have and to present to the public as part of the ongoing political debate about war on terror policy. Hiding that information corrupts the democratic process and is absolutely unacceptable."

    This has nothing to do with the main complaint about redacting the informants names.

    If we use the logic you use here: If you don't think is was right to release the informants names because there lives are at risk then you must be a war monger, then the same logic could be used to say you support the Taliban. Somehow I doubt thats the case. So STFU

  • AA||

    "There" should be "their."

  • Fluffy||

    Whatever.

    You pro-WOT guys were bitching about Wikileaks before anyone said anything about informants' names. You were pissed on the first day of the story. Go back and read Free Republic on the first day of the story.

    In fact, you were already bitching about Wikileaks before this particular leak was even made, back when the leaked video was released. There were no informants' names then, and you were already pissed - because Wikileaks wouldn't play ball and hide information that might embarrass the US government.

    It all boils down to bad faith. If this was 1944, and the US government came to me and said, "Hey Fluffy, don't print that info you heard about the invasion being scheduled for the first week in June. That would really hurt a lot of people!" I would say, "Sure, of course not!" I'd say this because I'd know the request was made in good faith, and that it wasn't being made so that one party could gain some Senate seats in the next election, or so that the President could avoid one measly uncomfortable question in a press conference, or so that the US could bury some dumb SOB they were hiding in a secret prison somewhere, or so they can protect some government official who broke one of the few laws that still restrain these guys in even the slightest way. I can't know any of those things now. In fact, I have to assume that's exactly why I'm being asked for secrecy. Whenever any US government representative asks me for secrecy, my first and last thought has to be that they're scamming me for someone's political benefit or to make sure they can keep on tricking the public about something. And you know and I know that they deserve to have me think that about them. So how do I go about deciding what information to suppress and what to release in such a context? In such an absolute and total sea of bad faith? I can't. The only possible course I can take is to release it all and hope for the best.

  • AA||

    "You pro-WOT guys were bitching about Wikileaks before anyone said anything about informants' names. You were pissed on the first day of the story. Go back and read Free Republic on the first day of the story."

    Seriously, what are you talking about? Nobody here supports the WOT. Free Republic? Come on. All you are doing is making any reasonable points you may make completely irrelevant. At least understand what we are saying without these wild accusations.

  • Fluffy||

    Fine.

    I'm lumping you guys in with Moynihan, and assigning his position to you, and that may not be fair in every instance.

  • Fluffy||

    By the way, Moynihan and Young completely support the war on terror, and would support a wider war if it was launched.

    So we really can't say "No one around here" etc etc etc.

  • AA||

    If you are bitching about the WOT, and most war in general, great, I'm with you, as I'm sure most posters on this thread tonight are. That still doesn't excuse Assange's carelessness to stroke his own ego.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It all boils down to bad faith. If this was 1944, and the US government came to me and said, "Hey Fluffy, don't print that info you heard about the invasion being scheduled for the first week in June. That would really hurt a lot of people!" I would say, "Sure, of course not!" I'd say this because I'd know the request was made in good faith...

    With 4+ decades of 20/20 hindsight you know it was made in good faith. You'd have no way of knowing that at the time any more than you know that with 4+ decades of 20/20 hindsight you wouldn't be outing good faith requests now. What an imbecilic "point" you are trying to make.

  • old rpm daddy||

    Sorry, 'Hawk. I didn't see your comment when I typed mine. You said it better. In addition to hindsight, it might be useful to consider that the government lied a whole lot about what it was doing during WWII, just to keep the enemy off-balance. So again, how would one determine whether a request was made in good faith or not?

  • old rpm daddy||

    In your 1944 scenario, how would you have known the government was acting in good faith? Without the benefit of hindsight, I mean?

  • ||

    Science you can be dense. I don't think a single person, here, has argued that this information shouldn't have been released. I haven't read anyone, on this board, claim "national security".

    What you miss entirely, is that there almost certainly were names of Afghani civilians who simply didn't want their sister murdered for not wearing a veil. Some attempt to prevent danger to these people could have been made without minimizing the information leaked. Failure to do so was the height of ass-hatishness. Failure to understand this simple fact is the second in ass-hatishness.

    Or since we love to place words in other people's mouths should I simply say "Sorry, Fluffy, I don't have any cake". (They all want cake)

  • Fluffy||

    What you miss entirely is that Robert Gates and the other administration spokesmen howling about the informants really don't give a shit about them one way or the other. Their real goal is to politically isolate Wikileaks to create a climate of opinion where they can get away with arresting everyone and shutting them down, and bringing Assange to the US [if he's lucky]. That's what this is really about - trying to whip up sentiment so they can make sure no one does an end-run around them again.

    "But Fluffy, no, they DO care, really - " No they don't.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Yes, because sources being put in danger doesn't harm intelligence-gathering due to possible reluctance of future sources. Really, Fluffy? Really?

  • Government of Wolves||

    I don't think he thought that far ahead... or that logically.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, if that's the concern, then it actually isn't concern for the informants. It's a pragmatic concern for the effectiveness of future intelligence operations.

    So that doesn't actually constitute a rebuttal.

    In any event, if it wasn't the informants' names that had the war party's apologists in the media gasping and clutching their pearls, it would just be something else.

    "This puts US operatives at risk! Their methods could be deduced!"

    "This puts US servicepeople at risk! The Taliban will hold out longer if they see any evidence of dissension between us and Pakistan!"

    There is an endless list of objections that could be raised to the leaking of any information. And they WOULD be raised, because the real argument here is "Shut up and stop asking questions about the war, because once a war starts the public no longer has any role but to read our press releases and clap at parades."

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    [citation needed]

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    Art - not a citation, but to me good evidence of Fluffy's final point is the shift in news coverage from the time of Vietnam to now. Back then, cameras were allowed more unfettered access to the battlefield, and the top commanders regularly held the "Follies" news conferences. Many have pointed to the news coverage as a key factor in the erosion of public support for that military action.

    Now, the situation is far different. The military is far more sophisticated in managing war zone stories, and they are abetted by the political leadership. From my perspective, they (more than ever) seek to arrange coverage in as positive a light as possible... even if it requires dishonesty. I agree with Fluffy that this is detrimental to legitimate governance.

    That written... Fluffy, is it not possible that libertarians posting here really *are* concerned about the safety of individual Afghans?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I really appreciate your thoughtful response, Chinny, and that is a fair point.

  • scruffy||

    Mm, publishing the informants names was asshatish, not admitting error and redacting was willful asshatish.

    Assange's willfully ignorant response to Amnesty, that's been confirmed?

  • johnl||

    No Fluffy it's really reasonable to expect that anyone publishing this would take the time to first black out the names of Afghan civilians. Don't have time to black out names == don't have time to publish.

  • Jay||

    Carrying water for the baby-killers in the Military, hu, Moynihan?

    /Jay

  • ||

    I guess Art is as well.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Yes, "baby-killers in the military". Both of you eat a dick and die.

  • Jay||

    Mmmm....dick...

  • ||

    Art, truth hurts? Libertarianism is not about fellating the military industrial security surveilance income tax make war all over the world state.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Shut the fuck up, LibertyMike. Go ride your hobby horse somewhere else.

  • Jay||

    Let's salute the men and women in uniform and thank them for their service:
    "At least 23 unarmed men, women and children died in the attack"

    http://www.aolnews.com/world/a.....s/19496450

    Thank you for killing innocent civilians. You're making the world a better place.

    /Jay

  • BeltwayLurker||

    That's what they get for starting shit without arms.

  • ||

    Art, Fluffy is pretty much a pure libertarian-not a pretend one. What he has to say should carry a great deal of weight.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Yes, I'm sure that means he's always right.

  • ||

    Yes, I'll admit when he disagrees with me, he's wrong.

  • Ron L||

    libertymike|8.10.10 @ 8:52PM|#
    "Art, truth hurts? Libertarianism is not about fellating the military industrial security surveilance income tax make war all over the world state."
    M'k. And about Assange?

  • ||

    Liberaltarianism is not about fellating the military industrial security surveilance income tax make war all over the world state.

    FIFY

  • SIV||

    Their Che t-shirts are MORE than just a fashion statement;)

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Moynihan made no mention of abortion centers.

  • ||

    Libertarianism is not about "making peace" with the warfare state and its factotums. Its about smashing it.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Spoken like a true Bolshevik.

  • ||

    Yes, Art. You got me. I am so anarcho-free enterprise-individualist that I'm red.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    You missed the point entirely.

  • Government of Wolves||

    Thank you, Grand Libertarian Strategist!

  • ||

    Libertarianism is not about "making peace" with the warfare state and its factotums. Its about smashing it.

    The question isn't if outing government duplicity is wrong. Every single person on this board agrees that it is the thing to do.

    The question is if risking others lives, so that you can jack off while taking no risk, but claiming to "Carry the Banner of Libery" with Mike and Fluffy, equals being a hero or being a douche bag. There is absolutely nothing heroic in risking other peoples lives.

    The answer is douche bag, of course.

  • AA||

    Thank you. Exactly the point. Its so easy to whine about Liberty from your fucking computer without having to take any real risk yourself.

  • Fluffy||

    There is absolutely nothing heroic in risking other peoples lives.

    There would be plenty of people who would say it was heroic if he was risking other people's lives by flying killer robots around in the sky looking for people to assassinate.

    I'll tell you what: have the Obama administration hand over to me every piece of data that would embarrass war supporters or undermine public political support for the war on terror, and I promise to redact all proper names of non-Americans in the war zone.

    Until that's done, our real problem is the state stranglehold on information and political management of information, and one antidote to that is the uncritical and unfiltered dumping of raw data in a completely uncontrolled way.

    Don't like anarchy? Then give me an honest government with absolutely no finger on the scale in the public debate over its policies. If you don't want to give me that, fuck it - I'll cheer on the anarchists, in that case.

  • Ron L||

    And about Assange?

  • Government of Wolves||

    So, in your fantasy, the very real lives of those opposing murderous zealots should be held hostage to what you well know is an unrealistic goal - a perfect 'honest' state.

    It's nice to know you have such respect for the lives of your fellow men.

  • DG||

    It's the exact same reasoning that the government uses to justify civilian casualties. Our cause is just, so a few innocent deaths is acceptable.

  • ||

    If you don't want to give me that, fuck it - I'll cheer on the anarchists, in that case.

    I understand. If you don't get Utopia, you will hold your breath until you do.

  • Fluffy||

    Who said that?

    I said if you lie to me, don't come around asking me to be pissed if someone takes your secret files and publishes them.

    And if you hide shit from me over and over when you're just doing so for your own political advantage, don't come to me when someone publishes your secret files and say, "Damn it, we had a good reason for some of that stuff to be secret!" Your absence of a good reason for the rest of the stuff gives Anarchist Dude Of The Moment all the moral authority he needs, in my book.

  • ||

    Gotta break some eggs and that whole thingy, eh?

  • AA||

    I do understand your gripe. That still doesn't mean you get to act a careless as you want, regardless of your principles.

  • RyanXXX||

    Fluffy, that was perfect.

  • Scruffy||

    And so, don't complain if someone outs Assange's face saving.

    He's just scared to admit he blundered badly and now you are going to war for him on it.

    He's human, he screwed up. Don't turn it into a virtue, like he foresaw it and morally justified it ahead of time.

    If that was the case, he wouldn't have asked for help redacting it later.

    If you want to be so moral, admit that.

  • ||

    "risking other lives?" Sounds like typical pretextual crapola the state advances in support of its mass murder.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    "Mass murder"? Sounds like typical crap you spew.

  • AA||

    As bad as the US Government is at times, comparing it mass murder is pretty fucking ridiculous. Perspective man, try it.

  • ||

    the government gives money and aid to the ISI...who trains/aids and funds teh Taliban...all of whom are using the weapons from the anglo-saxon military industrial complex...which is good in the eyes of Westinghouse, GE and their media outlets. The government has killed a million or so in the Iraq/Af/Pak wars...that counts as "mass" in my book...and killing counts as "murder". Yes you pay your taxes to mass murderers...you don't want to believe it so you lie to yourself and attack those speaking truth.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    How 'bout a cite there, buddy? And if killing large groups of people is mass murder, then every battle is mass murder in your book, then, correct?

  • ||

    From the time I was a little kid, I just never bought the hero worship of clown costumed pussies.

    Real, grown up men, do not join state sponsored military or para-military organizations. Period.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Seek mental help immediately.

  • Colin||

    +1

  • ||

    Can you just commit suicide by cop already.

  • ||

    Real, grown up men, do not join state sponsored military or para-military organizations. Period.

    libertymike defining "real men"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no, seriously, I mean, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Funny, funny stuff.

  • Government of Wolves||

    And from the moment the brave, clever internet commenter bravely, cleverly defined what 'real men' are and do, satire became obsolete.

  • AA||

    +1

  • DG||

    You sound just like a general justifying collateral damage from a bombing raid. As long as the goal of more government transparency is achieved, some deaths are OK, right? Your mentality is no different from those in the military that you rail against. You simply have different goals you are trying to achieve.

  • Colin||

    This whole affair is pretty sad.

    Assange lost a lot of supporters here. And for no good reason.

  • Ron L||

    For very good reason.

  • Sidd Finch||

    You just said that Teddy Fucking Williams was not a real, grown-up man. Teddy Fucking Williams.

  • Sidd Finch||

    was supposed to be a reply to libertymike

  • ||

    baseball players are know as the "boys of summer"...it is a fucking game...played by immature boys.

  • Jackie Rogers, Jr.||

    No "D," please, Sir. As in the school graing system.

  • ||

    Remember Himler-- didn't he try character assassination in the 40's --that is so ridiculous -- and you have it sooo wrong with your so called reporting-- read what Amnesty international said for real-- this is like Jon Stewart when he snipped the Shirley Sherrod tape to show she was against the enviornment -- so funny--
    Come on-- did you know Nelson Mandela and Daniel Ellsburg where also dangerous men -- now they are revered

  • Ron L||

    Yungi|8.10.10 @ 10:16PM|#
    "Remember Himler-- didn't he try character assassination in the 40's"
    Remember godwin --- din't he get your number in the 80s?

  • ||

    The state has no right to confiscate my property in order to wage war upon foreign lands, thereby expanding the size and scope of its intrusiveness, pay informants and then try to character assassinate one who obtains "secret" information in an attempt to rally the folks behind the flag upon the pretext that "innocent lives are in danger" sophistry.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I like how you put "secret" in quotation marks. Grow up.

  • ||

    The defenders of the state will claim that dropping a atom bomb on a city of 200,000 people is "saving lives" yet revealing leaked emails is "killing innocent people"...can't make this shit up!

    "innocent lives" were put in danger when they decided to start dropping bombs on people. When people engage in a infowar to reveal that our government is supporting the Taliban via Pakistan's ISI....to show the war must be stopped...he is trying to save lives.

  • pickles||

    It's ridiculous how this has been spun, and sad that reason is in on it. Assange's leaks exposed hundreds of civilian killings and possible war crimes. The pentagon is selling a line that it exposes hundreds of Afghan "sources" who are now in danger. Why do you buy this line, when you disbelieve most everything else from the military?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I find it odd that you put "sources" in quotation marks. So you don't think the military or intelligence community uses sources or...what?

  • ||

    Real men do not join state sponsored military or para-military organizations. Only the those who are pussies do. You know, the types that are not self actualized. The types that can't make it in the private sector. The types that pledge allegiance to the state. The types that do nothing to stop the raping, robbing, pillaging and murdering done by the state.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Think about what you're saying and realize how stupid it is to paint people with a broad brush.

  • ||

    ok real men who are naive, nhave little grasp of history and do not understand the modern nation state very well do sometimes join the military...but we shouldn't really treat these sadly duped people as role models.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Again: broad brush.

  • pickles||

    I'll remove the quotes from "sources" if you'll respond to the actual point of my comment

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Who disbelieves "Most everything they hear from the military"? Obviously you don't believe everything you hear, but your point, with all due respect, is fucking stupid.

  • Ron L||

    pickles|8.10.10 @ 11:11PM|#
    "It's ridiculous how this has been spun, and sad that reason is in on it. Assange's leaks exposed hundreds of civilian killings and possible war crimes..."
    How about even one cite?

  • ||

    One cite which proves that, as direct and proximate result of Assange's actions, a person, not paid by, or assisting the US, Canada, Israel, Great Britian and Australia in their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, has been harmed.

  • ||

    Thank you pickles -- this is amazing how people have spun the information -- does anyone remember how Poland used this valuable leaked information -I don't think many of these people on the comment line have been truly aware of this information and the history of Wikileaks--yes Ron L- Mr. Assange included Israel as a rogue state- its not so simple-- they have no affiliation with countries-- they just get the word out --sometimes not so important-- sometimes Right on time --
    check out the WHO leak and Big pharma from the 90s

  • RyanXXX||

    Do people know that Assange submitted the material to the White House asking for the necessary redactions, but the White House refused to acknowledge the request before the release?

    That seems missing from the discussion. Obama and his war chieftains could have blacked out the informants names and VOILA! Problem solved.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    "Submitted material to the White House asking for necessary redaction" doesn't sound like a process that would work efficiently if that did in fact happen.

  • RyanXXX||

    Well if Obama and co. didn't want to take the trouble of reviewing the material, any collateral damage lands at their feet as well

  • ||

    whose fault is that?

  • RyanXXX||

    It's also interesting how this "poor Afghan informant" line has derailed coverage of the leak. The covered-up civilian casualties from OUR forces and the massive aid we indirectly give the Taliban through the ISI have been swept under the rug.

    Or how coverage of Bradley Manning has degenerated into speculation that he's a homo.

  • Luke||

    Julian is my hero!

  • Leroy||

    So if I understand this correctly...

    The people supporting Assange hate the civilian casualties caused by collateral damage in an effort to set up a stabilized government that will protect the rights of its citizens, but have no problem with civilian casualties caused by Wikileaks because it did not want to take the time or put in the work needed to simply remove names from documents.

    Is this really their position, or did I get this mixed up?

  • Virginia||

    Who needs Sweden when you have Iceland's Modern Media Initiative?

  • bubba||

    Assange is at war with the US and should be hunted down and killed as an unlawful enemy combatant.

  • RyanXXX||

    Lynch him!!!!!!! Waterboard his family!!!!!

  • ||

    Dear Leroy
    Please go to the interviews on UTube by TED democracy Now -the frontline interview
    The information that said an Afghan man was killed by the Taliban for being an informant was two years ago two years ago --our country has a vested interest that region of the world even recently with the cache of minerals found there-- there are very greedy folks in our government - that will lie and cheat to get what they want weapons of mass destruction-- an example-- be careful in the propaganda coming from the Murdock owned media

  • Leroy||

    Ummm...

    Huh?

    Are you really back on the 'We're there for the Oil!' theme?

  • ||

    Moynihahn - thanks for reminding me why I rarely visit this site anymore.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Drink!

  • Scooby||

    No Evidence WikiLeaks Disclosed Names of Afghan Informants

    Any evidence of actual informants named, or is Amnesty just parroting of the gov't line?

  • ||

    WikiLeaks: Amnesty International spokeswoman Susanna Flood confirms there was no authorized statement on WikiLeaks.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement