A story of the everyday squalor of journalistic incompetence
Francis Sedgemore, Thursday 29 July 2010
A few days following WikiLeaks’ publishing of over 90,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan, we learn that some of the leaked files contain the names of Afghan citizens who provided intelligence support to US military forces.
I was under the impression that WikiLeakers and their media partners had checked through the files prior to publication, and redacted information that would in the public domain compromise security and further endanger the lives of soldiers or civilians. One might forgive WikiLeaks for small errors and oversights, but surely not this one, especially when WikiLeaks’ whistleblower-in-chief Julian Assange justifies the release of the civilian names thus:
“No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret – our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm to them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives, we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of the war.”
This statement is a brain fart the scale of which dwarfs Assange’s already inflated ego, and it makes a nonsense of previous claims that some of the documents provided in confidence to WikiLeaks were held back from publication for reasons of security. It is simply not enough to complain after the fact that appeals for US government cooperation fell on deaf ears.
The result is an ethical transgression of enormous proportions, and one that unfortunately reflects badly on WikiLeaks’ media partners. If this revelation spells the end for WikiLeaks, then I would hope that a similar freedom of information initiative is launched in short order. Possibly under Icelandic legal jurisdiction, with oversight from journalistic and other civil society bodies.
Either way, Julian Assange’s personal reputation lies in tatters, and supporters of WikiLeaks (myself included) are left eating humble pie. Others could end up paying with their lives.
Feed the writer! 
Friday 30 July 2010 at 00:29 GMT
Andrew Exum links Assange’s comments to wider aspects of how foreign wars are viewed through the lens of domestic politics, and of how partisans on both left and right fail to understand the importance of foreign populations both as participants in foreign wars and as people vulnerable to the outcomes of domestic political fights in the West.
Assange, like so many others, seems too focused on his fight with authority in the West to see Afghans as real people in this story.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/07/afghans.html
Friday 30 July 2010 at 00:47 GMT
This blindness to the human consequences of political action discussed by Andrew Exum is indeed evident in political partisans across the spectrum. What gets me is how highly intelligent actors in such political games can be so short-sighted and irrational. In the space of a few days Julian Assange has effectively destroyed WikiLeaks, in that no journalist or other ‘information worker’ with a shred of ethical sensibility will again consider working with the man. I guess that’s the destructive power of ego for you.
WikiLeaks is dead. Long live Son of Wikileaks (whoever or whatever that may be)!
Friday 30 July 2010 at 13:20 GMT
It is plain that Assange’s simple minded application that all leaks be pulled out from the shadows and exposed to the light of day is absurd. His assumption he is providing both a service and benefit to the public good is childish.
He does not understand Wikileaks exits because there are others who have died over the decades defending his rights; he has shamelessly helped those who would conduct a war, indeed whole societies, without public input.
No accident ‘ass’ is part of his name.
Friday 30 July 2010 at 13:22 GMT
Assange has had his five minutes of fame, and it will take others a damn sight longer to undo the damage he’s caused.
Tuesday 3 August 2010 at 15:27 GMT
I may be wrong about this, but I think no interviewer has yet asked Assange if he believes the result of his leaks will be the Taliban’s return to power, and whether or not this is something he might “regret”.
Tuesday 3 August 2010 at 19:31 GMT
It’s not a question I would ask him, but that’s because I don’t wish to add to the voices condemning in general terms the publication of the leaked documents. In my view the publication of military reports with no current operational significance can be justified, but only once they are stripped of sensitive information that would further endanger lives. The problem is not the leaking per se, but rather the publication of certain documents which were not first filtered by Assange and his Wikileaks colleagues, and their collaborators in the media.
Friday 6 August 2010 at 11:34 GMT
[...] Central Asia specialist Joshua Foust on the Wikileaks affair… [...]