>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is really stunning, but is pretty much what I would expect. I understand why someone might want to release particular documents that represent a misuse of classification to uncover government misdeeds, but I don't think the kind of "dump it all out there just because we can" approach of wikileaks is about truth. It is about ego.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure ego plays a HUGE part in it - but at the same time if he was to go though the data and pick-and-choose what gets posted and what doesn't then of course people would want to know what he's hiding and why he didn't release it all.
>>>>
>>>>That's a much better option than what he did above.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am genuinely surprised this guy hasn't had a terrible accident. He really deserves to be collateral damage.
>>>>>
>>>>>The person who stole the data is the problem (along with the fools that gave 2 million folks access to it)- don't shoot the messenger.
>>>>
>>>>I really cannot believe you still see it that way. If someone steals a gun and you use it to shoot someone, you're not responsible????????
>>>
>>>Are you missing the entire purpose of Wikileaks - fighting censorship? Self-censorship by Wikileaks would be inconsistent. Like many other things, Wikileaks is a two-edged sword. You get "Collateral Murder", you get the "Afghan War Diary".
>>>
>>>As for your stolen gun analogy, that goes too far. If you can, show evidence that Assange has directly killed anyone.
>>>
>>>Manning was arrested in May. The "Afghan War Diary" was released July 25, two months later. The current batch of diplomatic documents is 6 months later. I'd like to think that a competent US intelligence community could use that time to get assets out of harm's way. It's worth pointing out that a vindictive person or organization might have released everything as of Manning's arrest, if not earlier.
>>>
>>>Suppose, for a moment, the organization that received these materials had been al-Jazeera (which, IIRC you have expressed some respect for) rather than Wikileaks. Would we even be having this conversation?
>>>
>>>You want to shoot the messenger, just because you think you can.
>>
>>No, I do not. My message is clear. I was specific on what I thought he was personally responsible for. If you read my message, you would have seen that. The analogy is still spot on. He knew people could get killed based on what he posted (see above) and yet he felt it was fine to have collateral damage. He knowingly and intentionally risked those soldier's lives. Something is not wrong or evil simply because it is a lesser wrong or evil....
>>
>>A lot of the disclosures could be healthy for this government and others, but some are just plain irresponsible and negligent and even (the above) criminal.
>
>With Wikileaks and Assange, the US Defense Department/Government has got a bloody nose from an organization they can't order about. You, like them, would love to label him a traitor and treat him as such, but as Meghan McCain helpfully pointed out, Assange is literally un-American. "Irresponsible, negligent and criminal" is a US-centric viewpoint. Do the al-Jazeera thought experiment I suggested earlier - calling them "irresponsible, negligent and criminal" would be stupid.
>
>The US is applying pressure on Assange and Wikileaks because they want to discourage other whistle-blowing sites. They recognize they're unlikely to stop Wikileaks (short of murdering Assange and other senior staff) but they'll give it the old college try.
>
>Ironically, an updated Whistleblower Protection Act is in front of the Senate and Congress in the very near future.


Nowhere did I write that. Please do not put words into my mouth. That is not at all what I wrote.

Besides, I'm still waiting on the documents on Area 51 to be released :o)