I'm sorry to see that you've been had and misinformed by Wikileaks-attackers.
It's been made clear numerous times now that Wikileaks never edited or omitted any parts of any of its leaks, any that were charged with the accusation at least. If you're thinking about the recent 39 minute video, here's a Gawker article that puts light on that:
http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-...
The relevant part:
Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did.
Perhaps they haven't edited leaks, but it's pretty obvious Wikileaks has some biases, particularly anti-war. The branding of the Iraq airstrike video as "Collateral Murder" stained their credibility, IMO.
The fact that they don't edit/omit parts of leaks also says nothing about which leaks they choose to publish.
That said, I think it's a valuable service, I just wish they remained an unbiased source of leaked information. Of course, journalism is rarely unbiased.
>but it's pretty obvious Wikileaks has some biases, particularly anti-war
We know that Sadam did not have any WMDs. We know that Iraq didn't have or support terrorists. We know that our government knew these things before going to war. Being "anti" such a war isn't "bias". It's the only moral option. If someone reports on a murderer being convicted do they have an "anti-murder bias"?
Arguments are either about differences in opinion or one side trying to correct the ignorance of another party (aka educate). You can't have an "opinion" about facts. Facts are simply facts and if you disagree with them you are simply ignorant of them.
So to have an argument (at least the good kind) here you would have to either (a) make the case that one of my "We know" statements is wrong or (b) make the case that there is some moral ambiguity given (a). If (a) holds then that means the US attacked a more-or-less random country (or worse, a specific country for reasons which we have to hide). I think one would have a rather large burden trying to prove that to be morally ambiguous.
> I'm only saying they should present the information and leave their opinion out of it.
They do both. Feel free to take their complete source material and republish it with your own analysis. There is no other media organization in the world which gives you this opportunity.
> Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did.
Even with this release they sold out, giving The New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel copies a month early. Of course, for a fee. Also note that Wikileaks withheld 15,000 “as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source."[6]
This tactic of "the source said so" is in itself untrustworthy as you can never verify the source. These are not forged or faked, however, withholding data is not being "transparent". Which is wikileaks mission.
I think George Brock said it best in his post entitled "Julian Assange and the Wikileaks agenda" where he wrote, "Assange’s style is an odd mixture of insight, nonsense and brass-neck salesmanship"[2] The fact that Wikileaks has an agenda and are out to sell information to the highest bidder does not speak well, IMO[3]. If you are going to promote transparency be transparent your self.
The Wau Holland Foundation has told reporters that Wikileaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travel and bandwidth, however they have not produced any detailed receipts for this[4]. As any charity should do- some are even required by law to do so.
On their twitter feed they call cryptome out for full primary sources, this is very hypocritical on their part[5]. Many of their problems did not start until Assange took the "helm", and many will not cease until he leaves.
They have also released bank numbers, addresses, SSN, and other private information on individuals(see BNP and Bank post). This is not necessary. You claim to "fight the power" then do it, do not hurt civilians along the way.
Hum, to correct some points: 1) the Guardian at least says no fee was involved:
"Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles."
2) I think also it's fairly clear the auction model was something they considered, tried and rejected (the auction failed), and 3) you didn't mention that the Wau Holland Foundation /will/ be producing a report as required by law.
And finally, concerning the extra documents not released, WL said it would only /delay/ the release, not block them altogether:
"We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits."
1) I agree that Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of any articles- Assange does not wield that much power- however, payment of some sort was involved. I cannot go into details on this as my sources would not allow it.
2) I do not work for Wikileaks, and I doubt you do. What they do behind closed doors is only up for public opinion. They have made it clear in the past that they are not beyond selling information. I am not so certain they are still not up for it.
3) I thought I had included that they were planning on releasing a summary in August. This is, however, the first one they have done since Wikileaks inception in 2006. Where are the last 3?
4) I am a huge fan of Mr. Assange. I do not like his politics, but I do respect him. For what ever reason you have decided to believe him. The word of someone who has told you their agenda. The word of a man who also deleted 30 mins from the 2007 helo attack. Now they delete facts from the War logs? What about the lying[1]? I can take but so much before I start to see something fishy. If your goal is transparency than you your self mush be 100% transparent, and Wikileaks is not.
I am not a Wikileaks apologist (in fact, I believe they are biased and fairly untrustworthy), but both the NY Times and the Guardian (sorry, don't read German :) were both very explicit in saying there was no money involved.
Do you have evidence supporting the claim that they demanded a fee from those agencies?
I don't know why you are downmodded. It is pretty clear that Wikileaks (at least Assange) has a very strong political viewpoint and is not objective.
When he was asked if it was okay okay to selectively show video (and label it as "collateral murder") he blamed the "right wing reality distortion field". It is immature to blame someone else for an an action that he took, and it is clear that this individual has an agenda.
According to the press conference with Julian Assange 91,000 is the total number and includes the 15,000 not yet released, i.e. they have released 76,000 documents.
It's sad that your legitimate question was hijacked by purely political interests. I too would like to know if the data is complete and not edited and politically biased.
They never edit anything out. If they release a summarized or abridged version of something with a political spin to it, you can always find the full, unaltered sources if you bother to look on wikileaks.org.
The NYT in fact is redacting information. Wikileaks also wa working with the White House to hold back a few key pieces of info according to the NYT.
Names of public figures (generals, prominent police officials, governors, warlords and senior afghan officials) have not been not redacted, though on a case-by-case basis, the names of lower-level employees have been removed. Similarly, well-known insurgent commanders or terrorists are not redacted, but the names of lower-level figures are.
The types of information that have been removed from the documents include:
Names or precise identifying information of sources.
Names of buildings under surveillance.
Names of prisoners.
Names of kidnap victims.
Times required for various tactical military reactions.
Radio frequencies or phone numbers used in insurgent communications.
Ah, I've been reading up on this, and indeed they've redacted some information. According to Assange, this is to prevent anyone operating in the region from being attacked by insurgents. I'm guessing that it would be bad for Wikileak's publicity if they got somebody killed.
The original encrypted version of the video that WikiLeaks claimed they needed super computer time to decrypt would be a start towards the transparency they claim to value.
The original encrypted video is not useful to anybody unless you are trying to determine who the source is.
If you don't trust Wikileaks to not have tampered with the video they released, then why would you trust them if they provide something which they claim is the original encrypted version?
I disagree that the only use of the original video is to determine the source. I don't care who the source is and I am still interested in understanding WikiLeaks' claim that super computer time was necessary.
If releasing what was leaked to them would endanger the source, they should say so. They have not released what was actually released to them if indeed what was released to them was an encrypted file.
I think there is a good case for the existence of an organization that disseminates and preserves these historical artifacts. It is becoming less clear that WikiLeaks is that organization.
You know, in any of these cases that I presume you're discussing (the helicopter murdering civilians, etc), the US government is fully capable of releasing more videos or documents, if there were any, that would show this information in a different light. The fact that the government doesn't is, I think, sufficient to know that the information is safe to interpret as showing the most charitable possible interpretation.
