who did he put in danger? I actually bothered to read some of those files. there is nothing new there. nothing dangerous and nothing shameful. it's even silly how there was nothing interesting there at all. no plot to drink up Iraqi oil. no plot to bomb Iran. no plot to divide poor Palestine. no plot to attack Russia. nothing at all, except for some personal opinions (which were pretty much the same as published in american papers), and some second tier, mediocre attempts at espionage. who is in danger because of it? ridiculous crap. when NYT published pentagon papers several years ago, that was putting some people in danger. yet, investigative journalism it is. freedom of press. i think it's shameful, the way Assange is treated (regardless of his views).
I am sure you have not read all the docs. here is a random link http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html (no, I have not verified it myself) or you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Reactions_of_human_rights_groups
and what do you think the effect of this will be: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=197870
then jerusalem post and cbs news should think twice before retyping it. or, you should held Jpost and cbs news (and nyt) to the same standards as wikileaks.
common! first, cbs did not list the names. second, and more important, cbs and jpost refer to the public source - wikileaks. yes, perhaps they make the enemy job easier. but they did not make these materials available - Assange did. just read the wiki article again - the people who call him irresponsible there are not typically on the "secretness" side. imagine someone breaking into your system and stealing your personal files of your patients. then he submits them to wikileaks, which publishes them in the name of openness. how would you feel? some might even look and say - nothing special, "we kinda knew it anyways"...
finally, I can imagine how someone decides to violate privacy and secrecy of others to disclose an important point - like Johnson lies in the Pentagon papers, or scientists' lies in the climategate, etc. what was the point, the big eye-opening here? what big wrong was there that outweighed the wrong of disclosure?
your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics. i might agree with you that it's immoral. nonetheless, it's legal. "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
Zhenka, it looks like you just replied with slogans ignoring my comment completely. I think each of your statements in the last comment is wrong.
>your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics.
I tried to argue exactly the opposite in my prev comment. feel free to take it point by point. but the intuitive point is that an investigative journalism typically is attempting to display a crime of some sort (incl., moral). it makes an important point which it supports by documents, which sometimes are obtained illicitly (which often represents a problem - imho, it should not always be viewed as legitimate, because it is for a good cause, and it is certainly not always protected by "freedom of speech"; indeed the Pentagon papers journalists were never acquitted of espionage charges, though they were freed, so courts and public opinion need to decide whether the violation was justified). Assange published the docs in question just because they were labeled secret. no crime, no point.
> it's legal. it is far from clear. again, see PP
>"travlya" Assanga
I'd like to understand what you mean here exactly and specifically. his bank accounts are not made public - that would be a symmetric response, etc.
> "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
some rhetoric that one hears is dumb, stupid and even disgusting, but it is protected by free speech, unlike disclosure of secret documents.
1. again, what attacks 2. I am not sure how law applies here, but I am not sure citizenship matters 3. excessive support of him also creates a bad precedent
I must admit, there are a number of issues here that I am uneasy about. so, if you will, consider my arguments from the point of view of devil's advocate ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 12:32 am (UTC)I actually bothered to read some of those files.
there is nothing new there. nothing dangerous and nothing shameful.
it's even silly how there was nothing interesting there at all.
no plot to drink up Iraqi oil.
no plot to bomb Iran.
no plot to divide poor Palestine.
no plot to attack Russia.
nothing at all, except for some personal opinions (which were pretty much the same as published in american papers), and some second tier, mediocre attempts at espionage.
who is in danger because of it?
ridiculous crap.
when NYT published pentagon papers several years ago, that was putting some people in danger. yet, investigative journalism it is. freedom of press.
i think it's shameful, the way Assange is treated (regardless of his views).
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 03:20 am (UTC)here is a random link http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html
(no, I have not verified it myself)
or you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Reactions_of_human_rights_groups
and what do you think the effect of this will be: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=197870
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 03:58 am (UTC)or, you should held Jpost and cbs news (and nyt) to the same standards as wikileaks.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:14 am (UTC)just read the wiki article again - the people who call him irresponsible there are not typically on the "secretness" side.
imagine someone breaking into your system and stealing your personal files of your patients. then he submits them to wikileaks, which publishes them in the name of openness. how would you feel? some might even look and say - nothing special, "we kinda knew it anyways"...
finally, I can imagine how someone decides to violate privacy and secrecy of others to disclose an important point - like Johnson lies in the Pentagon papers, or scientists' lies in the climategate, etc. what was the point, the big eye-opening here? what big wrong was there that outweighed the wrong of disclosure?
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:42 am (UTC)i might agree with you that it's immoral. nonetheless, it's legal.
"travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:45 pm (UTC)>your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics.
I tried to argue exactly the opposite in my prev comment. feel free to take it point by point. but the intuitive point is that an investigative journalism typically is attempting to display a crime of some sort (incl., moral). it makes an important point which it supports by documents, which sometimes are obtained illicitly (which often represents a problem - imho, it should not always be viewed as legitimate, because it is for a good cause, and it is certainly not always protected by "freedom of speech"; indeed the Pentagon papers journalists were never acquitted of espionage charges, though they were freed, so courts and public opinion need to decide whether the violation was justified). Assange published the docs in question just because they were labeled secret. no crime, no point.
> it's legal.
it is far from clear. again, see PP
>"travlya" Assanga
I'd like to understand what you mean here exactly and specifically. his bank accounts are not made public - that would be a symmetric response, etc.
> "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
some rhetoric that one hears is dumb, stupid and even disgusting, but it is protected by free speech, unlike disclosure of secret documents.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 05:57 pm (UTC)I think attacks on him create a bad precedent.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:26 pm (UTC)2. I am not sure how law applies here, but I am not sure citizenship matters
3. excessive support of him also creates a bad precedent
I must admit, there are a number of issues here that I am uneasy about. so, if you will, consider my arguments from the point of view of devil's advocate ;)