

Wikileaks co-founder speaks about the "Collateral Murder" video - steve19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sYXppiOteM

======
gruseom
It's amazing to me that this guy doesn't realize what terrible damage he's
doing to Wikileaks' credibility by editorializing this so aggressively. In one
swoop they've gone in my mind from neutral champion of transparency to just
another advocacy group. It doesn't help if one happens to agree with the
advocacy, either; what is destructive is that the ideological agenda is so
obvious. (So, it seemed to me watching this, is his smug self-satisfaction.)

What a shame.

~~~
jacquesm
Spot on. Wikileaks should simply present the information, _NOT_ editorialize,
or even analyze beyond verification of veracity.

They are destroying their credibility faster than they're increasing their
profile. Effectively they're making this about them, and they are forgetting
that they should simply be a neutral conduit.

I have a strong feeling we're watching a pivot in progress, setting up a new
domain name and releasing the video there is a big step in that direction.

~~~
borism
I'm sorry, I totally disagree. I find his comments totally sensible.

~~~
tomhoward
That's not the point.

Whether you find his comments sensible or reprehensible doesn't alter the fact
that he's moving Wikileaks away from its traditional role. In doing so he
risks destroying its most compelling feature and diminishing the impact of
future leaks.

~~~
aw3c2
Wikileaks has provided articles about certain leaks when people who them.

I do not understand why people are so eager to blame Wikileaks for doing
something wrong with this release. It is showing a gross injustice which has
not been shown before.

------
tptacek
Despite what both the interviewer and Assange say, it's simply not true that
Wikileaks has uncovered any meaningful information about this story. They have
_not_ broken a US coverup. Virtually every detail in the video has already
been disclosed. An article recounting most of the details of the video ---
from the killing of the prone reporter to the firing on the apparently unarmed
men in the van --- appeared in the Washington Post last year. It even quoted
the audio track from the video.

It is also simply not true that Reuters was unable to see this video after
filing a FOIA request. Reuters saw the video in 2007. What they were not
allowed to do was to retain a copy.

The more I watch of this the clearer it becomes to me that this Wikileaks
video release has a lot more to do with Wikileaks than it does with war
crimes.

~~~
dsplittgerber
Stating that Wikileaks has not uncovered any meaningful information is quite a
stretch. It's true that WaPo and NYT have already covered most of the factual
details of the incident - the WaPo reporter was supposedly embedded with the
troups arriving on the scene shortly afterwards.

You're mixing up your timeline. Reuters staff were able to view the material
released by US Central Command (military investigation write-up and selected
photographs) and also the video itself once, before they were told to file an
FOIA request for it, but their FOIA request for the video was rejected
multiple times. The relevant question remained whether the shootings were
justified under Rules Of Engagement and also whether what the military stated
was true.

I think it is similar to reading about how torture is going on and seeing
actual photos of it. To accurately assess what exactly went on, a military
investigation write-up is quite different from the actual gunship video.

I agree that one may have quarrels with Wikileaks' methods. But please
differentiate between their methods and the material they release.

From NYT 07/13/07: “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly
engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott
Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad." \- To state
that about the incident is misleading at best, and a cover-up at worst, don't
you think?

~~~
tptacek
How is my timeline mixed up? What does the vividness of the footage have to do
with anything? What does an NYT article from July '09 have to do with a WaPo
article from September '09?

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm certain there was a US coverup. The US
military would cover up a paint spill. What I'm saying is that Wikileaks
didn't break the coverup; it's been broken for more than 6 months.

Your comment encapsulates my issue with this Wikileaks story. People's
justifiable outrage over what the video shows is clearly going to distort
their judgement about the news value of the leak.

~~~
dsplittgerber
Your timeline was mixed up regarding Reuters seeing the video and their FOIA
request.

The news value is that one is now able to objectively verify what happened in
the ultimate vicinity of the incident. And that just doesn't add up with what
the military told the press. A WaPo reporter writing about footage without
being able to show it is something quite different than footage being
available for everyone to see.

What I have found on HN is that people's judgement of the video gets distorted
by their views about Wikileaks' methods. Their release methods have nothing to
do with the validity of their material.

~~~
tptacek
I think you and I agree about the Reuters / FOIA timeline.

The press reports I've read about the incident do not seem uncritical about
the military's official story. So, I don't know what we're arguing about.

