4 ms·

In the Afghan War Documents leak, Julian Assange refused to redact the names of Afghans who informed on the Taliban. He referred to them as “spies and traitors”

by _iyig 8y ago

In the Afghan War Documents leak, Julian Assange refused to redact the names of Afghans who informed on the Taliban. He referred to them as “spies and traitors” in comments to the media. A reporter for the Guardian claims he said, “Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.” Nasty way to diss on fellow leakers, in my opinion. I wonder if Mr. Assange feels he himself deserves what’s now coming to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Informants_named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Info...

megous 8y ago
People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that. There's no clear just way to view the entire situation. Though Assange was unreasonable to call them all "spies and traitors", if that's what he did.
- olalonde 8y ago
  > People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that. I'm not sure if you meant to defend him but that describes Julian Assange's own situation pretty well.
  - megous 8y ago
    I only meant to point out that being an informant for occupying force is not some clear cut morally good situation from an outside POV on the informant, when the giving of information leads to: - killing people by bombings - locking people up without usual safety/legal process regards, and torturing them (either directly, or by having a pretty nasty jail) Innocent people are often killed, and locked up. This is not some precise process. Also being an informant druing war for one side is not the same thing as being an informant for police in the peaceful western country, or informing on curruption via leaks. These are wildly differing contexts. You can't view informants with high regard, unviersally. People will falsely report on neigbours, to settle some past grudge, because they know trigger happy Americans will bomb/storm the place, if they can make the story plausible enough. Even if you assume good reports, bystanders get killed, or snatched up too. And through all this you have to still assume us-vs-them mentality, that all Taliban members are bad, and informing on them is good. So there's a grain of truth in the view that was ascribed to Assange, above. But it's unreasonable, to go full way, and make all informants be traitors and whatnot. There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention: https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/1250069262 https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/125006926...
    - _iyig 8y ago
      I'm sure there are lots of fascinating details, unexpected side-effects, and counterintuitive observations to be found in a moral accounting of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. I've watched (and read) "Generation Kill," which examines similar situations in the Iraq War. I have friends and relatives who fought in Afghanistan. I've also read a number of books on the subject. I can appreciate the twisty-turny nature of morality in war, and how not all informants may have good intentions. On the other hand, the Taliban seeks to keep girls out of school, treat women as chattle, throw homosexuals from rooftops, eliminate the Hazara people, behead apostates, and stone adulterers in football stadiums. Lots of people in Afghanistan hate them, and would inform on them to protect themselves and their loved ones, at a level of personal risk which neither you nor I can likely comprehend. So there's that.
      - megous 8y ago
        I aggree to all that.
    - spaced-out 8y ago
      >There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention: Sorry, no. The US has terrible foreign policy, yes, but religious fanatics like the Taliban are a cancer on humanity. They seek to keep women as chattel and murder homosexuals and anyone else that doesn't conform to their insane ideology. Anyone who informs on them is a hero, and people like Assange who go after them are villains. It's no coincidence that Assange is buddy-buddy with racists like Sean Hannity (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-ass...). He just wants to be in the news, and doesn't care if he has to stand side-by-side with fascists, racists, and religious fundamentalists to get there.
      - megous 8y ago
        No, to what? The book is not an advocacy for Taliban.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
From your link: Guardian journalist, David Leigh, claimed that Julian Assange initially refused to redact the names of informants.[62] In his book, co-authored with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Leigh claimed Assange to have said in relation to whether the names should be redacted, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."[63] In response to the book's publication, WikiLeaks posted on Twitter: "The Guardian book serialization contains malicious libels. We will be taking action."[64] When Douglas Murray relayed these comments in a debate, Assange interjected "We are in the process of suing The Guardian in relation to that comment."[65] The Guardian claimed the following day that they had 'not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers', two months after the publication of the book.[66] So what you report is a claim that Assang himself has strongly denied.
- dpwm 8y ago
  Worth also noting that Luke Harding has been involved in some rather extraordinary claims, seemingly without corroborative evidence. The most startling is the allegation that Paul Manafort personally visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy – probably the most surveilled building in the UK – secretly, more than once, "according to sources." [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20181127143814/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://web.archive.org/web/20181127143814/https://www.thegu...
- jhayward 8y ago
  He hasn't strongly denied it. He said in 2011 that he would sue them for reporting the quote. He hasn't. Anyone can say "it's not true" on twitter. I don't call that a strong denial. In any case, the names of informants were published. He did it. That's all you need to know about the man.
  - dpwm 8y ago
    Just bear in mind that libel is a seriously expensive game in the UK (£100,000+), and perhaps might not be your highest priority when you're fighting an extradition attempt.
cwkoss 8y ago
The Guardian journalist may have fabricated that quote.
dandare 8y ago
Except he denies it and it may not be a truth. Have you even considered the among his enemies are the most powerful governments in the world, with a track record of not only corruption and lying but also collateral murder and enabling torture of women and children?

by _iyig 8y ago

megous 8y ago

People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that. There's no clear just way to view the entire situation. Though Assange was unreasonable to call them all "spies and traitors", if that's what he did.

olalonde 8y ago
> People take real risks when telling on others. That it may be later revealed and their targets may try to take revenge is part of that. I'm not sure if you meant to defend him but that describes Julian Assange's own situation pretty well.
- megous 8y ago
  I only meant to point out that being an informant for occupying force is not some clear cut morally good situation from an outside POV on the informant, when the giving of information leads to: - killing people by bombings - locking people up without usual safety/legal process regards, and torturing them (either directly, or by having a pretty nasty jail) Innocent people are often killed, and locked up. This is not some precise process. Also being an informant druing war for one side is not the same thing as being an informant for police in the peaceful western country, or informing on curruption via leaks. These are wildly differing contexts. You can't view informants with high regard, unviersally. People will falsely report on neigbours, to settle some past grudge, because they know trigger happy Americans will bomb/storm the place, if they can make the story plausible enough. Even if you assume good reports, bystanders get killed, or snatched up too. And through all this you have to still assume us-vs-them mentality, that all Taliban members are bad, and informing on them is good. So there's a grain of truth in the view that was ascribed to Assange, above. But it's unreasonable, to go full way, and make all informants be traitors and whatnot. There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention: https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/1250069262 https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/125006926...
  - _iyig 8y ago
    I'm sure there are lots of fascinating details, unexpected side-effects, and counterintuitive observations to be found in a moral accounting of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. I've watched (and read) "Generation Kill," which examines similar situations in the Iraq War. I have friends and relatives who fought in Afghanistan. I've also read a number of books on the subject. I can appreciate the twisty-turny nature of morality in war, and how not all informants may have good intentions. On the other hand, the Taliban seeks to keep girls out of school, treat women as chattle, throw homosexuals from rooftops, eliminate the Hazara people, behead apostates, and stone adulterers in football stadiums. Lots of people in Afghanistan hate them, and would inform on them to protect themselves and their loved ones, at a level of personal risk which neither you nor I can likely comprehend. So there's that.
    - megous 8y ago
      I aggree to all that.
  - spaced-out 8y ago
    >There's this book, that makes good points about the complexity of the situation in Afghantistan, and the US intervention: Sorry, no. The US has terrible foreign policy, yes, but religious fanatics like the Taliban are a cancer on humanity. They seek to keep women as chattel and murder homosexuals and anyone else that doesn't conform to their insane ideology. Anyone who informs on them is a hero, and people like Assange who go after them are villains. It's no coincidence that Assange is buddy-buddy with racists like Sean Hannity (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-ass...). He just wants to be in the news, and doesn't care if he has to stand side-by-side with fascists, racists, and religious fundamentalists to get there.
    - megous 8y ago
      No, to what? The book is not an advocacy for Taliban.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

From your link: Guardian journalist, David Leigh, claimed that Julian Assange initially refused to redact the names of informants.[62] In his book, co-authored with Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Leigh claimed Assange to have said in relation to whether the names should be redacted, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."[63] In response to the book's publication, WikiLeaks posted on Twitter: "The Guardian book serialization contains malicious libels. We will be taking action."[64] When Douglas Murray relayed these comments in a debate, Assange interjected "We are in the process of suing The Guardian in relation to that comment."[65] The Guardian claimed the following day that they had 'not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers', two months after the publication of the book.[66] So what you report is a claim that Assang himself has strongly denied.

dpwm 8y ago
Worth also noting that Luke Harding has been involved in some rather extraordinary claims, seemingly without corroborative evidence. The most startling is the allegation that Paul Manafort personally visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy – probably the most surveilled building in the UK – secretly, more than once, "according to sources." [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20181127143814/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://web.archive.org/web/20181127143814/https://www.thegu...
jhayward 8y ago
He hasn't strongly denied it. He said in 2011 that he would sue them for reporting the quote. He hasn't. Anyone can say "it's not true" on twitter. I don't call that a strong denial. In any case, the names of informants were published. He did it. That's all you need to know about the man.
- dpwm 8y ago
  Just bear in mind that libel is a seriously expensive game in the UK (£100,000+), and perhaps might not be your highest priority when you're fighting an extradition attempt.

cwkoss 8y ago

The Guardian journalist may have fabricated that quote.

dandare 8y ago

Except he denies it and it may not be a truth. Have you even considered the among his enemies are the most powerful governments in the world, with a track record of not only corruption and lying but also collateral murder and enabling torture of women and children?