i believe that this is actually the case rather than longstanding collaboration based on WL originating as a russian intelligence program. anything is possible, of course.
Watch this shift to China or NK when Russia is no longer a "current enemy".
You can sufficiently explain all WL actions by simply assuming that they will do whatever it takes to hurt US interests.
All politics aside (as if that's possible), we should always strive to learn and expose truth...
Agreed, but selectively exposing the truth requires that if the net effect is a positive one that enough parties are exposing truths to ensure some kind of balance. If not then it becomes a political force in its own right rather than there is an overall gain in transparency.
I'm pretty conflicted about this, on the one hand I applaud WL for the degree to which they have exposed various wrongs, on the other I am disappointed in how they decided to become a political player rather than to just be a conduit.
not saying the information should not be out there, just saying that there are far too many nations who would as soon kill the messenger
So it is about selective releasing information about parties in the US rather than about differences in approach from one country to another.
Stating that Assange hoped that the leaks of the DNC emails would hurt the Clinton campaign clearly shifts WL from being 'just a conduit' for leaked material to being a political operator in its own right.
An organization devoted to transparency should not have an agenda of its own, this in contrast to Assange's previous claims that he did not have a favorite side.
Of course it's hard to prove existence of what they didn't publish. And it is plausible their personal opinions would influence their publication decisions. But that's simply an allegation, not evidence of it happening.
How would the auditor verify having received the complete dump though? It's not like there is a verifiable index of the material available to Wikileaks. Also I think it would be hard to satisfy the critics; next to the impossibility of securing funding for such an undertaking. On top of everything else Wikileaks would risk exposing their sources.
So please don't say it's easy for Wikileaks to get an audit.
Looking at it from another angle: If leakers are unhappy how Wikileaks is publishing, they may well decide to leak somewhere else too. That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.
I thought I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this.
> That happening would actually lend credence to the claim that Wikileaks is redacting for political reasons.
Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.
I assume it would be hard to pre-redact documents to hide your omissions. Outright omission of documents from a dump would be harder to detect in my view. But I must admit I'm ignorant of the techniques available.
> I though I had covered any fears about source exposure and being believable with my two suggestions for who could do this.
Partly. In my view it's up to the sources to decide who gets to see the original dump. They chose Wikileaks. Maybe they did so for reasons we'd judge nefarious but we are not free to assume they'd agree with sharing the originals more widely.
> Openleaks and the Intercept come to mind.
Did they get dumps Wikileaks had published before? Where the version published by Wikileaks turned out to have been selectively redacted for political reasons?
Though they also published climate scientists' emails, which was not a sign of great rationality on behalf of Assagne.
They also said Snowden and MLK were working for the Russians/Soviets