tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post1451894752018940302..comments2024-01-09T17:16:02.647+07:00Comments on JOTMAN: Analysis: Reporters Without Borders slams WikiLeaksJotmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-19743438407300078762010-08-26T12:53:53.375+07:002010-08-26T12:53:53.375+07:00Wyamarus,
Good to hear your thoughts on this, now...Wyamarus,<br /><br />Good to hear your thoughts on this, now it's my turn to be frank.<br /><br />I think concern that the lives of the informants could be endangered is legitimate. I don't think it is ethical for WikiLeaks to knowingly release any informants' names or to behave with indifference or carelessness in regards to this matter.<br /><br />Also, looking at it from your angle, because the circumstances of an individual becoming an informant are going to vary from village to village, I think it's impossible to make any judgments about the motivations of informants, let alone the morality of their choices. I bet even those Westerners on the ground in Afghanistan -- who filed the reports in which the names appear -- perhaps more often than not, barely had a clue who is who. Could they distinguish between an informant and a double-informant? I have my doubts. Also, The story in every informant's case will be a bit different. Half the time coalition forces probably don't know who the people behind the names really were! Which is not to disparage the intelligence of the soldiers, but the fundamental absurdity of the whole project.<br /><br />Therefore, for anyone to conclude on the basis of this evidence: "Well, this person was an informant so they must deserve what's coming to them" is, essentially, to be caught up in the nonsense. The release of names could have consequences to real human beings about which we essentially know nothing. Military leaders continue to act as if Afghanistan is a game that they can understand. Should we fall into the same error, accepting the claims of reports at face value? It would be a mistake to assume the reports are objective.<br /><br />The faults of the Americans are easy for us to see because the culture and language are accessible. Yet, this does not imply the absence of great defects in the other. It is true that the Taliban can be seen as defending their home country against a foreign occupation, and this gives them legitimacy and support they likely would not have otherwise. Many of today's Taliban supporters probably just want an end to foreign occupation. Even if they may enjoy considerable public support, this doesn't mean the Taliban have "the interest of the country at heart." (Anymore than the popularity of Sarah Palin means she has the interests of ordinary Americans at heart). <br /><br />Certainly, the Taliban haven't shown any regard for the Hazara minority who have suffered from severe oppression and massacres "carried out by the predominately ethnic Pashtun Taliban and are documented by such groups as the Human Rights Watch." (Wikipedia) Also, Taliban have shown no regard for the human rights of half the population; nor for the culture and history of Afghanistan -- as evident by the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas and other national treasures. Last but not least, Taliban have benefited from financial and logistical support from Pakistan and certain Gulf State interests. To some extent the Taliban are proxies for these regional powers. The Taliban can be said to represent another kind of imperialism.<br /><br />The West does not know Afghanistan. Regardless of who has access to the names, we are appallingly ignorant about Afghanistan society and culture. This observation holds true as much for war supporters as for war opponents and the media. Therefore, I think nobody has the right to "roll the dice" on the fate of individuals that none of us ever knew.Jotmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-54358122873479214362010-08-25T01:08:00.756+07:002010-08-25T01:08:00.756+07:00I frankly don't see why the concern is given t...I frankly don't see why the concern is given to the 'informants' when in reality they are the collaborators who are the "finger men" of a corrupt puppet 'government' of mercenary warlords and compliant frontmen for the US hegemony. <br /><br />The last poll of the Afghan citizenry that I was aware of had 90-95% of the population in favor of the return of the Taliban, because while severe in their policies, they were at least honest, and had Afghanistan's interests at heart, not some US multinational petrochemical company's. Not to mention that they weren't insinuating themselves to foreign occupying armies that had Texas-based joystick-jockeys dropping bombs on their houses at night, or firing rockets at their family gatherings by remote control. The real victims in this scenario, other then the folks who were the target of the US military's "wilding" of the countryside, are the countless thousands who have been tortured, or killed and disappeared through the actions of these 'informants'.<br /><br />Their attack on WikiLeaks makes me wonder who is fronting the bills at RSF these days,and I have to question their impartiality.wyamarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629517206685062989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-21456013265139139692010-08-22T09:32:26.368+07:002010-08-22T09:32:26.368+07:00I think everyone is forgetting that most so called...I think everyone is forgetting that most so called secrets are "only" not known by a countries general population. The country's enemies have their own sources.<br /><br />Also, one would hope that any name in a sensitive document would be a code name, for millions had access to these papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-47260388520443873112010-08-15T00:52:15.819+07:002010-08-15T00:52:15.819+07:00Carole,
"..in my own life I am absolutely su...Carole,<br /><br /><i>"..in my own life I am absolutely sure that it's not right to jeaprodise a minority without their permission in order to achieve any ends..."</i><br /><br />I completely agree.<br /><br />However, it is not clear to me that WikiLeaks knowingly put Afghan informants at risk. How could possibly be -- as RSF implies -- that WikiLeaks is the only party at fault?<br /><br />In the 30 July post which I refer to above, I suggest that by having raised the matter with the White House, the White House had 1) the moral obligation and 2) access to information necessary to ensure that no Afghan names were released.<br /><br />According to WikiLeaks, they gave the White House the opportunity to prevent the accidental release of sensitive information. The White House, which should have known full well that WikiLeaks might not catch every name, did nothing. They ignored the request by WikiLeaks, perhaps hoping to discredit them later. In other words, the White House might have been playing a very cynical game.<br /><br />WikiLeaks ought to have seen this coming, but it might have naively assumed that the White House would always go the extra mile to protect its informants. No response from the WH could have been interpreted by WikiLeaks to mean that nobody would be seriously put at risk. Only the government was in the position to mitigate all the risks. (Other administrations have cooperated with the press when asked to identify names that shouldn't be published.)<br /><br />Under these circumstances, it seems to me that RSF is blasting WikiLeaks with an astonishing degree of moral certitude.Jotmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-86270897274355686412010-08-14T23:54:07.075+07:002010-08-14T23:54:07.075+07:00I have an unresolved problem with this kind of thi...I have an unresolved problem with this kind of thing. On one side it doesn't feel democratic for such secret documents to be unilaterally made public, especially when so doing endangers others. On the other side it is absolutely democratic to do so... although my feeling is, in this case at least, the risk that is has caused to other people may mean it has not been a completely responsible action.<br /><br />I'm not a politician and this isn't my area. However in my own life I am absolutely sure that it's not right to jeaprodise a minority without their permission in order to achieve any ends, let alone those where eventual success is not assured. That said, I'm still very unsure where my own ethical line would - or should - be drawn in this case.Carolenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-77203102935079856302010-08-14T09:22:25.059+07:002010-08-14T09:22:25.059+07:00Rick,
It certainly can be viewed as part of a tre...Rick,<br /><br />It certainly can be viewed as part of a trend within the establishment media. Jumping on the bandwagon. <br /><br />It will be interesting to see whether other well-established human rights groups follow RSF or stay on the sidelines.Jotmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-7093851371126949472010-08-14T01:11:27.933+07:002010-08-14T01:11:27.933+07:00I find RSF good but not without their biases (neve...I find RSF good but not without their biases (nevermind Otto Reich's association) and in this case they are far too critical of Wikileaks and seem to come from a Western establishment perspective, some echoes of other journalists who seem to be annoyed at wikileaks for doing the job they in their corporate largesse have abdicated.RickBhttp://www.tenpercent.org.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-89315674690052714902010-08-13T23:05:51.319+07:002010-08-13T23:05:51.319+07:00Sanjuro,
It also seemed to me that Assange was he...Sanjuro,<br /><br />It also seemed to me that Assange was hedging, careful with his words. And that was my point. If Assange didn't come out and directly say what Thiessen alleges he said with clarity, it would have been better to describe Assange's comments the way you did. Also, Thiessen supposed that Assange was referring to war-planning specifically, when he was probably not. That's no way to build a case. <br /><br />Thiessen is writing an op-ed. There is leeway for subjective interpretations in an op-ed. The same can't be said for RSF. RSF should be expected to hold itself to a higher standard of objectivity than an op-ed columnist. <br /><br />I think that both RSF and WikiLeaks could be faulted for coming across as too opinionated, and not sounding sufficiently objective.Jotmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485510513271661365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5491095.post-56316883854198337482010-08-13T14:30:12.412+07:002010-08-13T14:30:12.412+07:00I have commented before (and I still believe) that...I have commented before (and I still believe) that WikiLeaks were not right to make those papers public without having removed potential informants' names and other sensitive details. The fact that the US government did not cooperate (for whatever reasons) doesn't remove that responsibility from Assange and his people. If you own the papers (no matter how they got to you), you own the responsibility. Don't want responsibility, just don't publish the damn thing. You did publish the papers, well, come out and admit "yes, we did it because we thought that was the right thing to do". Don't start asking why didnt the government screen them beforehands, because that is politicking, not journalism.<br /><br />And re: "the right thing to do". When I read that Assange used language like "there's a mood that so and so", instead of "we want to end this war" or "we want to win this war" or "we just want this was to continue", I am starting to get lost about their true intentions. Whose "mood", really? If Thiessen assumed that Assange's agenda was to help end the war - isn't that a logical assumption, given that Assange says smth to the effect "publishing these papers alone won't do that, but it shall move the policy in a significant way". By deciding to publish the papers, I am assuming Assange took a decisive step to support that "mood" he's refering to - or did he? I mean, Thiessen is probably right, but I can't be entirely sure, 'cause Assange seems a bit too sly. Would make a good politician.<br /><br />SanjuroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com