The Forum > Article Comments > Assange as journalist: An inconvenient truth? > Comments
Assange as journalist: An inconvenient truth? : Comments
By Kellie Tranter, published 26/6/2012The Australian government understands how important it is for US prosecutors that Assange remains outside the protection of First Amendment rights.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
The general principle of full transparency and revealing the machinations of governments is to be encouraged with some major provisos, the main one being placing other people in harm's way and or jeopardising national security; a rather amorphous term which can crystallise into dire consequences very quickly.
Did Assange's actions contravene either of those 2 prohibitions; were lives lost as a result of the leaks? The author of this article has not considered this. Perhaps she should have read Tom Coghland's accounts in the Times about how NATO informants in Afghan had been exposed by the Wikileaks.
Assange was made aware of the risk to these informants and responded by saying:
"He claimed that many informers in Afghanistan were “acting in a criminal way” by sharing false information with Nato authorities.
He insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information."
This is not the response of a responsible journalist; it is the response of a moral snob more concerned with his own ideology then other people.
The Taliban of course said they would hunt down anyone named in the Wikileaks.
In respect of the sexual assault charges in Sweden the Guardian’s account is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The author of the article has not referred to these serious charges. Surely the claims of TWO women cannot be dismissed out of hand?
Assange says the womens' claims are politically motivated; how can that be; they are his supporters and former admirers; the women share his politics.
What does the author have to say about this?