>>Have you read any of them?
>>If so, then of the one's that you have read who did you consider to have been 'damaged' and why ?
>>
>
>I have and I agree with Amnesty International the he risked the lives of the informants names he did not black out. I will not post their names here - that would be just as irresponsible as that idiot.

That certainly seems a bad decision. OTOH, if you were a conspiracy theorist, you could argue that the items containing these names were deliberately inserted by the authorities and were actually names of known subversives that they wanted to get rid of....


>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html
>
>Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”
>
>My issue with him is the lack of responsibility in hiding the identities of those involved. It's fine to out policies and deaths and anything else that comes about due to government policies, but to risk the lives of those involved in supporting our national interests is irresponsible. How many intelligence sources do you think trust us now? Not only that other countries were involved as well and so it damages them as well.