HuffPost covers for Wikileaks’ incompetence
I’m sure you’ve heard people from past aministrations as well as this administration warn Wikileaks that their irresponsible release of the communications they got from Bradley Manning could endanger people. And you’ve also heard the morons at Wikileaks declare that they knew what they were doing. The New York Times reports today that maybe they know what they’re doing, not so much;
Last year, WikiLeaks was sharply criticized by human rights activists for disclosing the names of Afghan citizens who had provided information on the Taliban to the American military. It was far more cautious in subsequent releases, using software to strip proper names out of Iraq war documents and publishing versions of the cables after they had been edited by The New York Times and other publications.
From Der Speigel;
WikiLeaks supporters released a copy of this data collection onto the Internet as a kind of public archive of the documents that WikiLeaks had previously published. The supporters clearly did not realize, however, that the data contained the original cables, as the file was not only encrypted but concealed in a hidden subdirectory.
Then, in the spring of 2011, Assange’s external contact made public the password that he had received from Assange without realizing that this would allow access to the unredacted US cables.
Those people whose lives are now in danger will be relieved to know that the release of their names was completely accidental says the Huffington Post;
The fact that Wikileaks released their names accidentally will certainly make their torture and deaths less painful
Category: Shitbags
“Shitbags” just about covers it. And this man is still wasting air, why?
I watched the “Frontline” episode that showed how the New York Times collaborated with Assange in the release of the documents.
Basically, they asked that Assange arrange it so that Der Spiegel release the State Department leaks first so that it could become “open” news, therefore relieving the NYT from any charge of espisonage. I seem to recall that they may have even funded some portions of Assange’s operations as part of the deal, either collaterally or directly, but I may be wrong.
Neverthesless, the New York Times’ editors knew it was illegal to release those cables directly, so they created a legal loophole to do so, thereby enabling this whole disaster (see “Arab Spring.”) IMHO, that demonstrates collaboration and conspiracy. The New York Times should be charged with espionage and treason.
Is it wrong to hope these guys start having “accidents”?
They say “accident” like WikiLeakers were unable to delete names and faces. Maybe they’re still using Microsoft Vista and haven’t figured out that mouse-thingy.
Personally, betting a huge sum of cash hit their corporate and individual accounts just before they clicked “send.”
If taken at face value, this is proof that Wikileaks has no business being in possession of any sensitive materials.
Assflange strikes again. I hope he suffers a sex change and a one-way trip to KSA.