>It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.
You can be obtuse about it if you want, but this is basically what it means. The only innocent people that the documents could've exposed would be related to american intelligence agencies
One thing is for sure though, AWS has never terminated a website because they exposed Russian intelligence documents, or because they made non american classified documents public. If you are american, then you can obviously play dumb here but it is blatant for everyone else.
And even beyond that, caring about the clearance level of a document is inherently political, and they explicitly say that it was one of the reasons for their decision to terminate WikiLeaks' hosting.
“Human rights groups have asked Wikileaks many times to do more to censor information found in documents. They fear reprisals against aid workers, activists and civilians named in the leaked data.”
Okay? They didn't ask AWS to pull down the entire website though
And again, AWS cited the fact that the documents were classified as being one of the reasons for the termination. You can't get more political than that. Especially when AWS does not care about it when it happens in other countries.
The fact that people will disagree about what's political and what isn't is precisely why censorship, in general, is illegal. Because when people have power over others (including censorship power) it's guaranteed they'll abuse it, even if simply by being convinced their own interpretation of reality is correct.
