>It's very interesting. I was reading along, getting a view of this individual, and feeling a little bit of understanding of how he got where he is mixed in with some pity, until I came to this:
>
>
Assange does not recognize the limits that traditional publishers do. Recently, he posted military documents that included the Social Security numbers of soldiers, and in the Bunker I asked him if WikiLeaks’ mission would have been compromised if he had redacted these small bits. He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. Perhaps the Social Security numbers would one day be important to researchers investigating wrongdoing, he said; by releasing the information he would allow judgment to occur in the open.
>
>A year and a half ago, WikiLeaks published the results of an Army test, conducted in 2004, of electromagnetic devices designed to prevent IEDs from being triggered. The document revealed key aspects of how the devices functioned and also showed that they interfered with communication systems used by soldiers—information that an insurgent could exploit. By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices. I asked Assange if he would refrain from releasing information that he knew might get someone killed. He said that he had instituted a “harm-minimization policy,” whereby people named in certain documents were contacted before publication, to warn them, but that there were also instances where the members of WikiLeaks might get “blood on our hands.”>
>Interesting that collateral damage is perfectly fine for him but not in war (that is earlier on in the article). Neither is ok when it can be prevented.
Aloha Tracy! You can't compare these two things. Assange did NOT kill anyone! We are talking about Potential vs Actual.
He is publishing stuff which depicts 'collateral murders' taking place and you already seated him in a helicopter along with
real gunners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3_ynHjL-M I agree that they should have redacted documents as to protect identities of the civilians who might get hurt,
but in this case we are not talking about some shiny office full journalists, secretaries etc, but small guerilla publishing operation
run by single man with some activists helpers.
As for soldiers involved
potentialy getting hurt , don't you think your government who sent them there (on a totally false grounds) bears tad more of responsability (aka “blood on their hands.”) then Assange as a whistleblower against it all ?
Now let see about
actual casualties. Here is the quote from the same article;
Late Saturday night, shortly before all the work had to be finished, the journalists who had gone to Baghdad sent Assange an e-mail: they had found the two children in the van. The children had lived a block from the location of the attack, and were being driven to school by their father that morning. “They remember the bombardment, felt great pain, they said, and lost consciousness,” one of the journalists wrote. The journalists also found the owner of the building that had been attacked by the Hellfires, who said that families had been living in the structure, and that seven residents had died. The owner, a retired English teacher, had lost his wife and daughter.
