Mr. Pure-As-Snow claimed a "financial interest" in the U.S. cables,

[pnwmom]

when he threatened to sue The Guardian if they published them before he wanted them to, according to the latest issue of Vanity Fair. He also wasn't particularly concerned about protecting anyone's identity.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102

In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.

SNIP

The biggest gulf between WikiLeaks and the traditional news outlets lay in their approaches to editing. Put simply, WikiLeaks didn’t have one, or believe in one. “Neither us nor Der Spiegel nor The New York Times was ever going to print names of people who were going to get reprisals, anymore than we would do on any other occasion,” says David Leigh. “We were starting from: ‘Here’s a document. How much of it shall we print?’ Whereas Julian’s ideology was: ‘I shall dump everything out and then you have to try and persuade me to cross a few things out.’ We were coming at it from opposite poles.” The redaction of the Afghanistan files was a point of contention within WikiLeaks as well. Associates say that Assange dismissed the need for editorial care, even as they urged him to take the task more seriously. Smári McCarthy, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, told The Independent in October that there were “serious disagreements over the decision not to redact the names of Afghan civilians.”


SNIP

The Afghanistan War Logs appeared in the three print publications and on Channel 4. Among other things, the documents detailed hundreds of civilian deaths at the hands of Western troops and the existence of a secret “black” unit of Special Forces to hunt down Taliban leaders. It also became clear that American officials were persuaded that Pakistan’s spy service had been helping the Taliban. WikiLeaks made a clumsy effort to redact the raw material, and in fact held back some 15,000 of the 90,000 files. Still, the redaction was not comprehensive, and the documents it posted on its site revealed some individual identities. Assange’s minimal attention to redaction—potentially putting informers or people on the American payroll in danger—drew criticism from some unlikely quarters, including Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders.

SNIP

[Ozymanithrax]

1. he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.

However you get rich is just fine as long as it is Saint Julian.

[fascisthunter]

3. lol

riiiiigggggghhhhhhttttttt

[pnwmom]

4. Our hero!

:loveya:



:sarcasm:

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. How, exactly, is he supposed to get rich from releasing the cables?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

9. I don't know what he had in mind, but "financial interest"

doesn't necessarily mean "rich."

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Clearly, he feels he will make money off this stuff.

Which is enriching himself. Send him a letter and ask.

[pnwmom]

13. Yeah, I'm sure he'll answer.

Because he's so transparent and everything.

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. Yes, I understand that... but the poster I replied to said...

"However you get rich is just fine as long as it is Saint Julian."

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Perhaps if you ask, he might expalin his "Findancial Interests"

Clearly, Mr. Assange belives he has a financial interest in doing so. He also appears less then happy when someone leaks this stuff without his permission. Imagine that.

[pnwmom]

12. If nothing else, he has abundant

ego.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. His "financial interest" *could* be the money he has tied up in the website, in revenues from

advertising... or he could have paid for information... it doesn't automatically mean he was going to get rich from it...

[walldude]

24. Yeah or maybe the hundreds of thousands it's going to cost

him in legal fees. If they even bother with a trial. I mean the man has no respect for humans, he should be hung on the White House lawn... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fascisthunter]

2. what's wrong?

[walldude]

5. Show me a single thread where someone said

"Saint Julian" is perfect? Show me one person who posted that Assange is "pure as snow". Please show me out of all the people defending Wikileaks, show me one single person that claimed Assange is perfect.

Otherwise take your snide thinly veiled personal attacks on other DU members with a differing opinion somewhere else.

[haikugal]

6. Well done Walldude...

I'll keep you company while you wait.

[pnwmom]

8. I was referring to the way he comports himself,

as if he were beyond all human concerns.

[Cassandra]

16. He's not beyond the human concern...

that our governments have been lying to us. Or is that not what you had in mind?

[walldude]

18. Beyond all human concerns.

Then why would he be involved in something like Wikileaks if he was "beyond all human concern"?

Why would he give a crap about government secrets if he "comports himself to be beyond all human concerns"?

I think, you don't like what he's doing so you are attacking him personally. Something I'm sure you love when people do it to someone you agree with.

[WinkyDink]

19. Ummm.....A compelling interest in revealing WAR CRIMES of TORTURE would seem to contradict you.

[sabrina 1]

Where did you get that impression?

Are you at all familiar with the history of Wikileaks or with Assange? Having followed this story and the work they have done over the years, I have never had the impression that Assange appeared to be 'above human concerns'. Quite the contrary.

For one thing, he was aware that any news organization willing to expose corrupt governments (the U.S. is not the only country in the world) would be placing themselves in danger.

As a result of the reality of the situation he and all of the Wikileaks members, over one thousands of them, tried to limit information about their whereabouts etc., some being from countries like China and other oppressive regimes.

He left his own country and in order to protect his own family from any reprisals coming his way, he has not returned. And it took the U.S. to prove him correct after death threats were aimed at, not only himself, but at his son and mother. We should be so proud.

Maybe those who know him best are the ones to judge whether or not he has a 'lack of human concern', and if we are to go with their assessment of him, not to mention the awards he has received regarding 'human concerns', this statement can only be attributed to complete ignorance of the work that Wikileaks has done, the human lives saved and the people themselves who have risked their own safety to help the voiceless in other countries, including Assange.

[pnwmom]

21. Assange has saved lives? Do you have a link for that? n/t

[sabrina 1]

25. A link? I had a feeling you were not at all familiar with

this organization or Assange, and the work they have been doing, before the U.S. finally took an interest in them, to their shame, and only when it seemed that someone had leaked damaging information about THIS government.

As for saving lives, one example would be the work they did, Assange especially, in Kenya to stop the brutal killings and disappearances, torture etc of those who opposed the brutal regime there. For that work, Assange received Amnesty International's 'New Media' award for 2009. That is just one example. As Assange said, they could not get the Western media to take any interest in what was happening in Kenya, so they had to do it themselves.

Wikileaks is made up of people whose goal has been to stop human rights abuses wherever they find them.

And until Fox et al were brought in to demonize the organization and one of its founders, Wikileaks was and still is a highly respected, worldwide, organization and will remain so. I'm sorry that you have fallen for the propaganda here, but it does work, I have to give credit where it's due.

[pnwmom]

27. It's too bad Assange turned from trying to actually doing good,

as in Kenya and in releasing the helicopter video,

and instead decided on a policy of releasing whatever the heck he could get his hands on, no matter who it might hurt, as in Zimbabwe and the diplomatic cables.

[sabrina 1]

17. Is this supposed to be news? Wikileaks made an agreement

with all five news agencies to publish their work on the leaks he provided them with at the same time.

This is old news and I'm not sure what the significance of repeating something that is well-known with a negative slant is meant to do. When one of those agencies appeared to be about to break the agreement, he reminded them of their agreement.

As to the redactions, Wikileaks asked the Pentagon to help redact harmful information from the material they were about to publish. The Pentagon refused. Wikileaks did what they could to delete names etc.

This has been fully addressed by Assange and he has said repeatedly that the only way for a small organization like Wikileaks to properly disseminate so much information, was to work with News Organizations that had the experienced editorial staffs to be able to handle it.

A lot of jealous people in the news business. I guess the success of Wikileaks, the fact that almost every major scoop published in recent years, came from Wikileaks, shows more than ever, the failure of the MSM.

Robert Gates btw, doesn't agree with the 'sloppy redaction' sentiment of this author. He apparently stated that they had done a 'reasonable job' of removing anything harmful from the documents.

He also stated that no harm has come to anyone from these leaks.

[pnwmom]

20. Yes, it is news that Assange claims that he OWNS the U.S. government

cables that he said he was leaking for the sake of transparency.

It is news that he claims a "financial interest" in determining how and when he leaks the cables.

None of this has been "fully addressed" by Assange. The article just came out.

Robert Gates did not state and could not state that no harm has come to anyone from these leaks. For one thing, people "disappear" everyday -- and many of the people we work with are already in conflict with their own governments. For another, we already know that one of the people we have worked with, the former Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, has been harmed: he has been arrested and charged with treason as a direct result of the cable release.

[sabrina 1]

22. It may be news to YOU that Wikileaks has a financial interest,

like any other news organization, in material in their possession, legally obtained from whistle-blowers, but to anyone who has been aware of this organization, it certainly is not.

That material, btw, belongs to the American people, NOT to the U.S. government. But once material is obtained by the press that is of interest to the public, the press certainly does have a financial interest in it. People have to eat, even reporters and editors and publishers.

When did Assange claim to be a monk? This appears to be a fantasy concocted by anti-freedom of the press advocates.

For its entire history, Wikileaks has solicited funds through donations and Assange himself has written material for which has been paid.

This is NOT news, it is an attempt to distort, but that can only be successful with anyone without any knowledge of the subject. Admittedly in the U.S. due to our media, that ignorance is pretty pervasive, but throughtout the rest of the world, where Wikileaks has been known and respected, it is only going to diminish the image of the U.S. further.

Thankfully we have people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore among others who will hopefully convince the rest of the world that we in he U.S. are not all ignorant victims of Fox 'news'.

[pnwmom]

23. Copyright is owned by the author of a document, or the author's employer;

but not by the leaker or the publisher -- unless the publisher purchases the copyright from the author.

Thus, the copyrights are owned by the people who wrote them, or by whoever paid them to write the documents: i.e., the U.S. government.

The Vanity Fair report is the first I've seen in which Assange claims to "own" the cables written by U.S. diplomats and others. If this is old news, please provide a link.

[xchrom]

26. Unrec