Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
15. Assange is well-known for not giving a shit about people in Afghanistan......
Sat May 24, 2014, 02:36 PM
May 2014


Assange re: Afghan Civilians: "They're informants. There's no reason for protecting them."

A very interesting interview about why the NYT's and the The Guardian's relationship with Assange soured---

"On Tuesday's Fresh Air, Keller explains why the paper decided to publish the documents, the impact of those cables and why he came to regard Julian Assange as "elusive, manipulative and volatile." Keller tells Terry Gross that during an early conversation with representatives of The Guardian, Assange was told that both The Guardian and The New York Times wanted to edit out the names of ordinary Afghan citizens in classified military documents.

"Assange's reaction was, 'Well, they're informants. There's no reason for protecting them,' " Keller says. "But I think over time, he came around to the view that at least, from a public relations point of view, it was better to allow for a certain amount of editing out of things that could cost lives."

But after the Times published the cables, their relationship with Assange went from "wary to hostile." Assange was upset, Keller says, because the Times would not link to the WikiLeaks website, which did not redact the names of low-level informants.

"Obviously, there was no way we were going to prevent people from going to the WikiLeaks website to see the documents, but as a matter of principle, we said that when we published our stories about the Afghanistan documents, we were not going to link to their website," Keller says. "We feared that it could become hit-list material for the Taliban. was deeply offended, not just that we had not linked to his website, but that we had made a point of not linking to his website. He thought we had shown disrespect."

More at link.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-th...

**********************************
Now, just imagine if you were an 'informant.' Imagine if you were a secular person who 'informed' on the Taliban bastards who burnt a school, blew up a Buddha, or killed a US soldier. Imagine if you were an 'informant' who told about a tribal leader who had wrongly sold a person to Guantanamo, ran drugs, or helped kill US soldiers.

Imagine if you told what you knew about the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Imagine thinking that what you told, in good faith to do right, was 'leaked.'

Imagine an anarchist--a world away--deciding your fate.

Imagine that because you were not HIS 'whistleblower'--you were called an 'informant.'




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x326988


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"people here are ready to defend Julian Assange and Dick Cheney" bobduca May 2014 #1
In what way do the actions of Cheney and Assange differ? JohnnyRingo May 2014 #2
Disagreeing with the decision to out Afganistan is fine bobduca May 2014 #3
Thank you, bob RobertEarl May 2014 #6
Perhaps I was inarticulate. JohnnyRingo May 2014 #10
Thanks for the clarification bobduca May 2014 #14
Actually they don't always know how we surveil them... JohnnyRingo May 2014 #16
skepticism is not isolationism bobduca May 2014 #18
I misunderstood you JohnnyRingo May 2014 #19
Greenwald is well-off a US citizen, and free to come and go. So is Cheney. bemildred May 2014 #4
Motivation? Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #7
Almost everyone knows we spy on Afghanistan ... GeorgeGist May 2014 #5
...and Cheney's people called Plame's CIA involvement an "open secret. JohnnyRingo May 2014 #11
Assange is basically screwing up Snowden's situation ProSense May 2014 #8
You seem to presume that everything the CIA does is hunky-dory. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #9
Valerie Plame was investigating the yellowcake sale from Niger to Iraq. JohnnyRingo May 2014 #12
Meanwhile the CIA's secret armies are running the CIA's secret wars. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #17
Considering the CIA's lengthy record of humanitarian policies and acts.... Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #13
Assange is well-known for not giving a shit about people in Afghanistan...... msanthrope May 2014 #15
I think the difference to them hinges on treestar May 2014 #20
Didn't the Repubs (Issa or whoever) spill the beans CJCRANE May 2014 #21
Assange can say... iandhr May 2014 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»To those so vigorously de...»Reply #15