18 ms·
Wikileaks is acting as source to journalists in the case you described above; not acting in a journalistic capacity itself. I would also ask you please to look
by NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
Wikileaks is acting as source to journalists in the case you described above; not acting in a journalistic capacity itself. I would also ask you please to look at the broader pattern of behavior.
You have the Iraq War leaks, the Afghan War leaks, the Syria leaks, the DNC leaks, the Vault 7 leaks etc. These were all largely indiscriminate releases.
The whole debacle around Cablegate (David Leigh is the name of the journalist I think you're looking for) makes it hard to know what the plans for the State Dept cables was originally intended to be; as I understand it, the whole archive is now hosted by Wikileaks for public consumption.
For the cases where documents were withheld, Wikileaks generally makes it clear because these were demanded by their sources, rather decided upon by Wikileaks.
- nobody9999 6y agoA reasonable assessment. Thank you. I'd only add that my point was absolutely not that Wikileaks/Assange have always been responsible in their public releases of information. Rather it was that the testimony given (at least as reported by the blog post) gives at least the appearance that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to responsibly (for some values of the term) push these disclosures through journalistic outlets, who, at least at first attempted to provide context around the released, redacted documents. Once there were multiple torrents and hosts for the un-encrypted, unredacted data, there was little point (and little publicity/exposure) in Wikileaks maintaining their encrypted archive. As for other releases that Wikileaks has done both before and since, those aren't really relevant to the current extradition hearing. IMHO, what you or I may think about the broader picture is relevant in a larger discussion, but not one about the current legal proceeding.