This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| extradition_skeleton_argument [2020/02/26 12:46] – editor9367251490216 | extradition_skeleton_argument [2020/02/26 12:58] – editor9367251490216 |
|---|
| |
| https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html | https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html |
| | |
| https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30WikiLeaks-t.html | https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30WikiLeaks-t.html |
| |
| === PAGE 33 === | === PAGE 33 === |
| | |
| | * "As for the risks posed by these releases, they are real. WikiLeaks' first data dump, the publication of the Afghanistan War Logs, included the names of scores of Afghans that The times and other news organizations had carefully purged from our own coverage. Several news organizations, including ours, reported this dangerous lapse, and months later a Taliban spokesman claimed that Afghan insurgents had been perusing the WikiLeaks site and making a list. I anticipate, with dread, the day we learn that someone identified in those documents has been killed. As for our relationship with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has been heard to boast that he served as a kind of puppet master, recruiting several news organizations, forcing them to work in concert and choreographing their work. This is characteristic braggadocio -- or, as my Guardian colleagues would say, bollocks. Throughout this experience we have treated Assange as a source." |
| | |
| | 151. The aforegoing contrasts the actions of the defendant with those of reputable media outlets. He is described as a source. He was warned not to publish the names of informants and others in danger if they were identified. He, according to his former media partners, deliberately chose to do so (in contradistinction to what any self-respecting and professional journalist would do). |
| |
| === PAGE 34 === | === PAGE 34 === |