Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Andrew Bolt

Dec 8, 2010

Consistently inconsistent.

The Herald Sun's freedom of information specialist, Andrew Bolt, seems to be having a difficult time choosing where he stands on Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange. One minute

Share

The Herald Sun’s freedom of information specialist, Andrew Bolt, seems to be having a difficult time choosing where he stands on Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange.

One minute Assange is “Drawing up a suggestion list for Osama”, which presumably should be condemned, but the next he’s worth quoting because a different cable reveals “The US on Rudd: a blundering “control freak””.

One day in Boltworld, “Assange is the neo-con’s friend”, and a week later “Assange arrested. The Leftist tribe protects its own”.

You have to hand it to Andrew, he knows how to give his readers everything that they want. He condemns Wikileaks when it suits his need to take a swipe at ‘the Left”, or as he put it today, “the class of the Perpetually Irresponsible.”, but he has no qualms about republishing information from Wikileaks when it helps him make an argument.

95 comments

95 thoughts on “Consistently inconsistent.

  1. confessions

    Talk about inconsistency. The editor of the OO, who has championed the Australia’s Right to Know campaign, is a notable absence on the signatories in an open letter to the PM about wikileaks and the right to publish the leaked cables.

  2. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    You’re right about the CRU emails though – many commenters here should re-think their calls for criminal prosecution of those who released those emails and their participation in the various smear campaigns around the ‘evil motives’ of the hackers.

    That is complete garbage Mondo Rock. The CRU emails were stolen, and of those only a very small amount were released. An even smaller number of those could be quote-mined by denialsts.

    There is a large difference between casual emails between scientists and official diplomatic cables, and an even bigger difference between someone on this inside leaking them, and somebody paying professional hackers to steal private correspondence to disrupt climate talks.

    At least Wikileaks are publishing all of the cables, not choosing which ones to release to show off the people they don’t like in a negative light.

  3. surlysimon

    Upy
    I agree with dave, to condem these leaks then gleefuly use some to you own ends is inconsistent, my comment as to not publishing some parts isn’t. As I have said it just gave wikileaks enemies amunition, I don’t think they were moraly wrong to leak it, just not politicaly wise.

    Re: Scooter Libby, from Wikipedia
    “Lewis “Scooter” Libby (born August 22, 1950) is a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.

    From 2001 to 2005, Libby held the titles of Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs and Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and Assistant to the President during the administration of President George W. Bush.

    In October 2005, Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[2][3][4] Plame’s relationship with the CIA was formerly classified information.[2] Libby was indicted on five counts relating to the Plame affair: Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice. Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.[5]”

    What Libby did was every bit as damaging as anything Assange may have done and for this he was given 30 months and $250,000 fine (not life as some are calling for) the 30 months was commuted by Bush.

    As to Assange being resonsible because he is the “publisher” surely that makes all media owners responsible, no one made then re-publish what had been placed on one single web site with I suspect a fairly low hit rate (very low now) Talk about inconsistent.

    The stupid part of this is that someone gave Wikileaks this infomation, they are the one who has broken the law, and simply punishing Assange isn’t going to achieve diddly, in fact as I have stated it may make it worse for the poor darlings and their “secrets”

    Interesting that no one has pointed to an actual offence that Assange might be charged with either here or in the US (the 1914 Commonwealth Crimes act isn’t appropriate becasue he didn’t have any Commonwealth material)

  4. mondo rock

    Much of his infamy and current discomfort seems to be related to the allegations and charges of the rape case. It seems to me that the developing story has somewhat combined the two unrelated events and created a view that he’s being held because of the leaks. I reckon if JA didn’t have the rape case on his plate, this would be a time he’d be loving.

    Upya – the two events are not necessarily unrelated, just as it’s not necessarily true that JA would be loving this time if it weren’t for the rape allegations. It is plausible that the allegations against Assange are being orchestrated by the US as a direct result of his involvement in wikileaks, and that if they didn’t have this stuff to throw against him they would find something else.

    At the end of the day, though, Assange is not the story here. If he is guilty of the sexual crimes he is accused of then of course he should go to jail – I doubt anyone would seek to dispute that – but of course that has absolutely no bearing at all on what Wikileaks is doing.

    In some respects I think the US is making a mistake by focusing on Assange in the way they have. They can jail him – even execute him – if they want but the horse has bolted. The internet is in full revolt against the US and every potential whistleblower in the world now knows who to go to if they want to get secret information out there without running it through the corporatist filter of our mainstream press.

    I honestly believe that the game has, just now, fundamentally changed. Wikileaks has just taken the next big step in internet journalism.

  5. Upyasmum

    Hi Surly,

    The problem with all of this back-and-forth stuff is that the heart of the conversation gets lost. Guys like me, as you correctly point out, tend to struggle to keep up.

    Could you do me a favour then? Could you explain a couple of things:

    1. I’m still very interested to see if you agree with Dave that Bolt has been inconsistent, particularly given that you have said that “it would have been wise not to publish some of what they obtained”. (Presumably, the “some” in that indicates that there are other bits that were okay to publish. You know, just like what Bolt said).

    The other reason I’m interested in an answer here is because it is the topic of the thread, after all.

    2. What’s this Scooter Liby stuff and what’s it got to do with anything said on this thread?

    Now to your question. I’ll try to respond the best I can.

    No. I don’t want JA to be treated like any other leaker, because he’s not a leaker. He’s a publisher. He has published material that has already been leaked. I’m all for publishing leaked material when it’s done responsibly and for the right reasons. (I acknowledge that the judgement of these things will often be subjective).

    I’ll concede that I haven’t paid much attention of late, but I’m not aware of JA being charged with anything relating to the Wikileaks material. I’d be disappointed if he was, but I’m always disappointed when governments get heavy-handed with journalists. I might change my mind on that if it’s shown that he has been reckless, acted illegally and directly endangered lives.

    I don’t know enough about the rape case to have a view either way on that subject. Having said that, it looks sketchy. But those Europeans are a progressive and funky bunch. I have trouble keeping up with them too.

    No, I don’t want to see JA killed. I’d like to give him a bit of a touch up for some of his suit, haircut, sunglasses, pout combinations, but that’s about as much physical punishment as I want to see meted out.

  6. surlysimon

    Upy
    I didn’t say anything of the sort, please try to keep up, I said possibly it would have been wise not to publish some of what they obtained, apart from anything else it wouldn’t have given their enemies so much amunition.

    I presume you will be calling for Assange to be treated like other (right wing leakers) and either left in peace or slapped on the wrist, or do you want to see him killed?

    MoC
    Very brave of AB to mention the Wilkie case, simply reinforces my view that as far as the right are concerned if they leak it then it’s all OK if the left does it then they should be punished.

    And remember that the US is using every trick in the book to punish Assange bar the actual law he may or may not have broken. And the swedish prosecution looks increasingly like an excuse to get him somewhere he can be extradited to the US asap, because that won’t happen as long as he is in England.

    What is also clear is if the US keep going down this path they are inviting a whole lot more revelations and cyber attacks

  7. mondo rock

    What a crazy comment from AB – nobody is defending Assange’s right to “political expression”, they are defending the right of the organisation he leads to publish government secrets. This is hardly an expression of political view or belief.

    It seems to me that both of the ‘B’s’ have been caught by their own strawmen here. They’ve created an idiotic view of Assange as some sort of fringe leftist activist trying to pursue a political agenda, and seem honestly surprised to learn that much of what he’s released so far actually damages left-wing governments.

  8. Matthew of Canberra

    AB this morning:

    And if it had been me, not Assange, who had leaked government documents, do you think the Left would demand Gillard protect my right to “political expression”?

    God, no. In fact, when I published extracts from a leaked report written by Leftist hero Andrew Wilkie when he was an intelligence officer, proving he was alarmist on the risks of invading Iraq, not one Leftist supported me, even when I was questioned by police.

    Yes. I see. That was very brave of AB to stand up against the government of the day like that. Now I see that I was wrong. Andrew, you are a defender of free speech. I didn’t realize that a network of volunteers had decrypted and ferried that information to you, braving the wrath of the governments of the world and facing the real prospect of being turned in by your sources. You stood up to a government that was trying to control the information its citizens would see and published information that critically embarrassed the powers that be. Hear! hear!

    Meanwhile, julian’s just passing along the snippets of information handed out by protected sources that happen to assist a government in smearing an opponent, fearing nothing more than a token investigation. Boo!

  9. confessions

    [I suppose that’s the price Assange is paying for being identifiable.]

    Yeah, except that targetting Assange might (and it’s a big ‘might’) only get *this* leak. But if the structural issues aren’t addressed (remember Rudd said around 1m US departmental staff have access to these files), then the same thing can happen again, and again, and again.

  10. Upyasmum

    Surly,

    So let me see if I can summarise your comments: You think that there are some leaks that have value for publication and others that don’t.

    That would be pretty much the exact line I’ve been running since I jumped in on this thread.

    Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Andrew Bolt was mauled for putting your principle into practice.

    So let me filter it down again: You agree with me (and presumably Andrew), and disagree with Dave.

    Correct?

    If not, can you or someone else tell me how it is inconsistent and/or hypocritical of Bolt to run an article that suggests listing sensitive US locations as irresponsible alongside a piece that shows that the yanks thought/think Rudd a muppet.

    Surly, it seems to me that’s the exact sort of thing you’ve just said yourself.

    While we’re at it, can someone tell me how it is inconsistent of Bolt to say that Neo-Cons are loving Assange’s content while the Left are just loving Assange?

    One last thing, Surly. Can you let me know which people of the Right called for Scooter Liby to get off lightly but Julian Assange to suffer greatly? Once you’ve named them, can you tell me what that has got to to with Andrew Bolt writing four posts on his blog or anything else that’s been raised here.

    Hi Gavin @ 84,

    “Spot on confessions — I suppose that’s the price Assange is paying for being identifiable.”

    I’m not sure if that’s right. I think there are two forces at play – Assange’s fame, if I can put it that way, is coming from his leadership of the organisation doing much of the publishing of the leaked documents. Much of his infamy and current discomfort seems to be related to the allegations and charges of the rape case. It seems to me that the developing story has somewhat combined the two unrelated events and created a view that he’s being held because of the leaks. I reckon if JA didn’t have the rape case on his plate, this would be a time he’d be loving.

  11. mondo rock

    In Australia it is a crime for public servants to release official State documents without authorisation to an outside party . . . I’d be very surprised if it was different in the US.

    It’s not different in the US confessions. The actual leaker of the diplomatic cables, Private Bradley Manning, was jailed some time ago for being the source of these leaks.

    All Wikileaks is doing is receiving and then publishing those leaked documents.

  12. GavinM

    “As I said in the open thread, the elephant in the room here is the poor security within the US State Dept, and whoever it is there that is leaking stuff out. I therefore think the focus on Assange is misplaced.”

    Spot on confessions — I suppose that’s the price Assange is paying for being identifiable.

  13. mondo rock

    Um fractious – if you don’t see any distinction between leaking the climategate emails and the current wikileaks release then I have no argument with you.

    My initial comment, and all subsequent comments, have related solely my observation that those arguing in favour of such a distinction are applying a double standard.

    I don’t really understand the rest of what you’ve written above.

  14. mondo rock

    I’m sure that would wrap things up nicely for you Calypto, except that I’m not a denialist.

    I am a firm believer that man is heating the world through its emissions. I am merely pointing out that information inconvenient to this conclusion should not be kept out of the public domain.

    I’m sure that calling me a name, pointing and laughing is considered the height of intellectual rigor in some circles but you’ll forgive me if I don’t treat it as a particularly persuasive argument in the current discussion.

  15. fractious

    @ mondo:
    1) I’m guessing you don’t want to admit it. OK – that’s your prerogative

    Nothing for me to admit to – you made a baseless assertion.

    2) The hacked communications had an enormous impact on the global warming debate. Obviously you don’t want to accept this and again, that’s your prerogative.

    If by “debate” you mean using hacked internal communications as a pretext for the tin-foil hatters to trot out their usual half-baked notions and for certain MSM outlets to preach their selectively anti-science agenda to the credulous and the gullible, I suppose you’re right.

    However none of these arguments presents a meaningful distinction between wikileaks publishing of the US cables, and the previous publishing of the climategate emails. If anything it does the opposite, as many critics of wikileaks have mounted exactly the same arguments against it as you have presented above in relation to the leaking of the climategate emails.

    Which is a (presumably deliberate) misrepresentation of what I’ve written. The lack of “distinction” is your own, since it was you who raised “climategate” in the first place, and it was you who continued to make claims for that non-event that don’t bear scrutiny. I have said nothing about Wikileaks, let alone criticise its decisions to release what it has.

    You seem to be adopting the view that leaking information that you personally value is good, while leaking of information that you do not personally value is bad.

    Which judgement is based on an argument you appear to be having with yourself.

  16. calyptorhynchus

    Mondo

    Why don’t you just admit you’re a denialist? then we can all laugh at you and move on.

  17. John Many Johns

    Apparently now the Leaks are; “Harmless gossip,…”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/harmless_gossip_but_the_reaction_wont_be/

    But then again they “WikiLeaks confrims (sic) unions are too strong in Labor” (apparently the spell check must be down :o)

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wikileaks_confrims_unions_are_too_strong_in_labor/

    But I thought it was only harmless gossip?

  18. mondo rock

    Hi Fractious:

    1) I’m guessing you don’t want to admit it. OK – that’s your prerogative.

    2) The hacked communications had an enormous impact on the global warming debate. Obviously you don’t want to accept this and again, that’s your prerogative.

    3) You’re probably right that the importance of these emails was overstated by many media outlets. My personal view is certainly in line with this.

    However none of these arguments presents a meaningful distinction between wikileaks publishing of the US cables, and the previous publishing of the climategate emails. If anything it does the opposite, as many critics of wikileaks have mounted exactly the same arguments against it as you have presented above in relation to the leaking of the climategate emails.

    The only inconsistency here is expressed by those who applaud wikileaks current release of information while simultaneously condemning the leaking of the climategate data (which, incidentally, may also have been wikileaks). You seem to be adopting the view that leaking information that you personally value is good, while leaking of information that you do not personally value is bad.

  19. confessions

    Gavin:

    Thanks for your thoughts. Personally, I reckon the Rudd stuff yesterday was highly embarrassing to the US, hence their rolling out Clinton, the Asst Sec of State for our region, AND the Ambassador (who bizarrely mused about a bromance with Kev) to apologise to Rudd. The interview with Campbell on PM yesterday was as close to a grovelling apology as you could expect from the yanks. That leak was worse for America than it was for Rudd.

    In Australia it is a crime for public servants to release official State documents without authorisation to an outside party. A woman I used to work with was charged and convicted of leaking stuff to the press when she worked in the public service a few years ago. I’d be very surprised if it was different in the US.

    As I said in the open thread, the elephant in the room here is the poor security within the US State Dept, and whoever it is there that is leaking stuff out. I therefore think the focus on Assange is misplaced.

  20. fractious

    @ mondo rock #70

    Whether you want to admit it or not, millions of people around the world found the climategate emails both important and instructive. Further, those emails have had a significant (and positive, in my view) impact on the level of debate around what is a critically important issue that affects all of us

    1) How do you know “millions of people around the world found the climategate emails both important and instructive”? Argument from unfounded assertion.

    2) The hacked communications had virtually no impact on the science nor the data nor the reasonable grounds for claiming that we’re screwing the planet’s climate up.

    3) “those emails have had a significant (and positive, in my view) impact on the level of debate around what is a critically important issue that affects all of us”. To the extent that some people now know what most of us have known all along – that scientists are human and occasionally put in writing things they shouldn’t have – I suupose you have a point. The beat-up of this non-event by certain mass-media outlets and certain self-appointed BlogScience “experts” (and the continued bleating by some bloggers in a desperate attempt to rescucitate same) was and is nothing more than a smear campaign and an attempt to spread FUD.

    The relevance of this to the subject extends only insofar as your own consistent inconsistency.

  21. mondo rock

    Why should the American government aid and abet an organisation to publish documents that have been stolen from it ?

    A good question Gav – obviously the US government has no obligation to assist Wikileaks.

    However it is a bit rich for them to then roll out the argument that wikileaks has put the lives of innocents in danger by ‘indiscriminately’ releasing the cables. If it was genuinely concerned for the safetly of these people then why didn’t it act to protect them when it had the chance?

    It seems to me that a strong argument could be mounted that the US government has either:

    a) lied about these cables posing a risk to individuals; or
    b) sacrificed the safety of those individuals simply in order to have a useful stick to beat wikileaks with.

  22. GavinM

    Hi confessions

    I’m not sure if the release of official State documents without permission is a crime, (I’m going to do some googling), but the possession of stolen property, as these files are, is at the least a petty crime.

    There doesn’t seem to have been much damaging material for the US in what has been released so far — although the one with Rudd urging the Yanks to use force against China might not help our diplomatic relationship with the Chinese too much — but I’m not sure if that is through good management or good luck.

    I don’t believe that Assange is patently anti-American either, I think its more a case of where the leaks are coming from, I’m pretty sure Wikileaks would publish files they received from any government.

    I do have to take issue with this statement from Mondo though

    “it is widely understood that wikileaks attempted to get the US State department to assist in the review process described above but it refused, preferring instead to allow the information to get out.”

    Why should the American government aid and abet an organisation to publish documents that have been stolen from it ?

    Perhaps instead of demanding that the State Department help them review these files, Wikileaks should have been offering to hand back their stolen property.

    As to my view on Wikileaks publishing these files — there is a need for governments to keep certain information secret, for diplomatic, economic and security reasons and I would hope that any organisation that finds itself in possession of sensitive documents would display a sense of responsibility and not publish anything that would compromise those functions.

    Thus far Wikileaks seems to have been reasonably responsible in what they’ve released although some of what they have let out could be very close to crossing that line.

  23. mondo rock

    Sorry confessions – I didn’t mean that comment about you to sound as snarky as it appeared.

    I am genuinely applauding you for applying a consistent argument.

  24. confessions

    [Although I do give credit to confessions, who has been very consistent in her support for the principle that there are categories of information that the public has no right to know]

    It’s quite simple really: any organisation that has to deal with competing interests, whether it’s a govt agency or a private company, must be able to say things privately in-house, yet present a different or sanitised version publicly. People might not like it, but that’s the reality.

    However, when the private, in-house mechanism is used to hide corruption or illegal or unethical activity, then exposing the in-house stuff becomes public interest. Some of what we’ve seen from wikileaks these past few days isn’t whistleblowing in my view. I see no public benefit in knowing what the US were saying about Rudd privately, or Obama’s personal views about David Cameron.

  25. surlysimon

    Upy
    I don’t see any problem, finding out secrets and sharing them are two entirly different things, and I do have morals, where as you still don’t seem to understand the concept, must be a bit too powerful for you.

    I can see no any hypocracy in my stance, I opposed the naming of the CIA agent by members of Bush’s administration and I oppose the naming of individuals in Afganistan, difference is the right moved heaven and earth to make sure Scooter Liby got off lightly and are trying to make sure Julian suffers greatly, that’s called hypocracy

  26. mondo rock

    Yes, I think it’s quite an easy distinction to make, the ‘climategate’ e-mails are informal academic communication and are irrelevant to the final scientific papers that were produced

    Irrelevant in your opinion Calypso.

    A shorter and more honest version of your argument is: “I don’t think the climategate emails were important but I think the US cable are.” The distinction you’ve drawn is based entirely on your personal views.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, millions of people around the world found the climategate emails both important and instructive. Further, those emails have had a significant (and positive, in my view) impact on the level of debate around what is a critically important issue that affects all of us.

    You should not presume to dictate to the rest of us what information is and isn’t relevant to the exercise of our democratic choice.

  27. calyptorhynchus

    Mondo

    Yes, I think it’s quite an easy distinction to make, the ‘climategate’ e-mails are informal academic communication and are irrelevant to the final scientific papers that were produced (none of which have had to be modified or withdrawn as a result of the publication of the e-mails).

    However, the wikileaks documents are a record of the core business of a rogue state whose global reach is such that the content of them is everyone’s business.

  28. mondo rock

    you seem to be under the impression that the ‘climategate’ emails show climate scientists in a bad light, or call into question climate science. In fact they are the normal records of informal academic interaction.

    On the contrary Calypto, I have no strong feelings about the signifigance of the climategate emails – if anything I think their importance has been overblown.

    My point is that they contained information relevant to the public debate, and that there were many here who argued the information should not have been published. Some of those may need to re-think their position now that they are supporting wikileaks for doing essentially the same thing.

    (Although I do give credit to confessions, who has been very consistent in her support for the principle that there are categories of information that the public has no right to know).

  29. confessions

    mondo:

    You should read my comments about this in the open thread before you get on your high horse. You’ll find we’re actually in agreement.

  30. RobJ

    [So to clear the record – wikileaks is neither ‘indiscriminate’ nor ‘reckless’ in the documents it releases. These descriptors are categorically false, and are being spread by the US government and its subservient allies in an attempt to smear wikileaks and demonise it amongst the population.]

    Hear hear, stop being sheeple people, proven liars (politicians) do not convince me when it comes to Wikileaks.

  31. RobJ

    Since Rudd and Howard are in agreement that it’s the US’s fault, Arbib has come to the fore as the boss of the Labor party I’m picking this will cause Gillard (who made a ridiculous statement the other day with regard to Assange) a lot of trouble, might even finish her off.

  32. RobJ

    Oh, and many of those who are saying that wikileaks are endangering lives, they don’t value human life anyway, they’re a pack of warmongers.

  33. RobJ

    As for the canard that lives in Afghanistan are in danger, well as Faine said yesterday, more Canadians have died as a result of US friendly fire than people dying as a result of wikileaks.

    I guess it’s a fact that the Taleban will be exacting revenge once the coalition leaves (and Karzai jets off with loads of stolen money) regardless of wikileaks.

  34. RobJ

    There is no evidence that Wikileaks stole the data. It’s the newspapers who are publishing the cables.

    The lying politicians chickens are coming home to roost.

  35. calyptorhynchus

    mondo rock, you seem to be under the impression that the ‘climategate’ emails show climate scientists in a bad light, or call into question climate science. In fact they are the normal records of informal academic interaction.

  36. mondo rock

    Confessions: most whitleblowing involves a criminal act. What’s your point?

    Also, you should note that it is not illegal to publish “official State documentation” without permission, which is why Wikileaks has not been charged with any crime (and why Gillard’s “illegal” claim was so idiotic). Newspapers do this all the time, it is one of the cornerstones of a free press.

  37. confessions

    mondo:

    Hacking into an organisation’s email accounts is a crime. As is the unofficial release of official State documentation. I don’t know why some people find this so hard to understand.

  38. mondo rock

    Many of you may not know that Wikileaks applies significant discretion in what it releases.

    Of the 250,000 dipolmatic cables in its posession it has only released around 1,000, and every one of those has been heavily vetted in co-operation with major global newspapers including Le Monde, The Guardian and the New York Times. In other words, not one document has been released before being heavily scrutinised by a panel of journalists – and in most cases the documents are posted by the newspapers mentioned before wikileaks actually publishes them.

    In fact, as was reported by Malcolm Turnbull today, it is widely understood that wikileaks attempted to get the US State department to assist in the review process described above but it refused, preferring instead to allow the information to get out.

    And all should not that, to date, the US government has not been able to identify even one person who has been injured or killed as a result of the wikileaks publications. Not one – if you read the article confessions links to above you will note that it admits “it is unknown whether any of the men [killed by the taliban] were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents”.

    So to clear the record – wikileaks is neither ‘indiscriminate’ nor ‘reckless’ in the documents it releases. These descriptors are categorically false, and are being spread by the US government and its subservient allies in an attempt to smear wikileaks and demonise it amongst the population.

    Sadly, it seems to be working.

  39. Upyasmum

    Surly,

    “The end justifies the means ….the right is morally bankrupt.” Hooooo. Powerful stuff. Not sure what it’s meant to mean, but it sure is powerful.

    I am glad to see that you’re rising to those challenges we spoke about last night. And not by just a bit either. It’s been a complete turn-around. From:

    “If you are going to keep secrets someone is going to try and find them out, and that is how it should be.”

    To:

    “…..personaly I think they should have been a bit more selective in what they posted on the web.”

    Consistently inconsistent indeed.

  40. confessions

    surlysimon:

    Most definately. A bit of discretion would prevent acts like that from occuring.

  41. Jay

    Confessions

    That would indeed be tragic, but the article you linked to does state

    “While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents…”

    So, as yet we don’t know.

  42. surlysimon

    confessions @50
    That is the down side of what wikileaks is doing, personaly I think they should have been a bit more selective in what they posted on the web.

  43. confessions

    Wikileaks releases a list of Afghanis who supported US troops. What does the Taliban do? Trawls it for details of who to kill.

  44. RobJ

    ^^Sorry – I just get so frustrated when my posts get stuck for no apparent reason…

  45. RobJ

    The Leaks regarding Rudd, the cables included comments from the former Ambassador to Australia, a Bush appointee. I’m expecting that there will be some from the Bush/Blair/Howard era, they’ve just scratched the surface.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/08/consistently-inconsistent/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.