Will The Journalists Who Outed CIA's Pakistan Chief Be Treated Like Julian Assange?

from the questions,-questions dept

Mon, Dec 20th 2010 6:21am — Mike Masnick

Richard Kulawiec pointed us to the news that got a lot of attention last week concerning how the CIA had recalled its chief in Pakistan back to the US after his name was outed in a lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by a guy who blames the CIA for his relatives being killed in a drone attack. Apparently, two Pakistani journalists gave him the name of the CIA chief, and the guy included it in his lawsuit, leading to the recall. While the American press is not reporting the guy's name, it's widely available in foreign coverage.

That said, Richard asks a key question: given how many people have complained that Julian Assange should face trial/imprisonment/death etc. for his work with Wikileaks -- which it's been claimed, with little proof, has actually put Americans in danger -- why are we not seeing the same sort of claims about the Pakistani journalists who put this CIA boss in danger? After all, the situations are similar. In both cases, these are non-Americans who had certain information, which they revealed. Except, in the case of Assange and Wikileaks, there's actually been an ongoing effort to redact names and keep important details like that secret. That didn't happen with the Pakistani journalists and the CIA chief. So why is one so evil, and the others mostly being ignored?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cia, intelligence, outing, pakistan, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 6:44am

*dismissive hissing noise*
I think the US has pissed off the Pakistani people enough. They'll probably just go after you for outing the Pakistani journalists who outed a lawsuit that outed a chief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 6:44am

Because...
"So why is one so evil, and the others mostly being ignored?"

Well, if you'd actually taken the time to read the Guardian article, you'd know that the lawyer bringing this suit forth in Pakistan is Admiral Akbar, and he knows that it's a trap....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 6:53am

Re: Because...
where do I send the bill for my keyboard needing to be cleaned....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am

Evil Ignorance
Perhaps, one as acting as a mouthpiece for the oligarchy, and the other is not.

Which makes one worthy of salary, and the other worthy of persecution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am

Re: Re: Because...
I believe this is his address:

Dark Helmet
1 Deathstarlane
902105 Thatsnomoon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:05am

F that ad at the top of the page
Seriously, F**K those ads that you have on this site that pop out every time I mouse over them. It took me no less than 7 attempts to read the top headline without that ad popping out. I know you are trying to make some money through ads, but I think you should limit the ads that just seriously piss off users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:06am

scale
There is a difference in scale. If Julian Assange was not one person but was really one person per document he would be a lot harder to deal with. All these guys should be left alone, Julian is high profile due to his high profile actions. Large scale = large attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:08am

Re: Re: Re: Because...
You have me confused w/someone else. I've taken up permanent residence in Mega Maid....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:17am

Pretty easy answer on how it's different.....it's just one guy, and the solution was pretty simple, pull him from the country. Yeah, it sucks for that one guy, a little bit, but it's not nearly the same level of harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jaws4theRevenge (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:20am

Re:
What harm? Links?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:25am

Re: F that ad at the top of the page
Seriously.

Chrome NotScripts:
http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/

Firefox NoScripts:
http://noscript.net/

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:30am

I think it's more the greater level of embarrassment for the government and creating an example to deter others from releasing information in the future. Not that it will work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:34am

Re: F that ad at the top of the page
And...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=Adblock+Plus&cat=all&x=0&y=0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:44am

The U.S. will do nothing in public because of this.
The reason why is that they don't want to annoy anybody over there, they will get violent and start boarding planes to off themselves in American soil.

Personally I think pakistanis are dumb, all muslims are dumb at least the ones I know, there are a few exceptions, but that fanatic religion thing is in general dumb, like christian fanatics or hindu fanatics they are all dumb, except maybe for the Dalai Lama.

It is just unbelievable how true it is the fact that force is the only thing that matters today.

We like to think that we are civilized but that is not entirely true, we still resolve things not by agreement but mostly by force.

In politics we force others to comply, in society we force people to comply, in dealings with others if we have leverage we would force others to do something.

This forcing thing is sure to bring about conflict.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:50am

Re: Re: F that ad at the top of the page
Thanks for the link, noscript installed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:02am

The difference
It's probably because Westerners actually read Wikileaks, and they don't read (or care about) Pakistani journalists.

The "outrage" at Wikileaks is not about "keeping the troops safe," or whatever excuse they're using this week. It's about Western governments keeping their own citizens ignorant and complacent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:32am

Re: F that ad at the top of the page
If you can't control your browser we'll have to ask you to please avoid the area and stop whining like an angry tweener who had his Xbox 360 taken away on a rainy weekend!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Because...
Damn, there goes the planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:54am

Re: scale
Exactly! So we should only hunt down serial murderers, one-time killers or hell, even robbers shouldn't be hunted down at all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Because...
"You have me confused w/someone else. I've taken up permanent residence in Mega Maid...."

Yeah, that Mega Maid, she's a real whore, she'll take in anyone. She's so bad, I hear she goes from suck to blow like the flip of a switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:11am

Treatment...
The journalists who gave the CIA chief up are guilty of treason! Journalists play a game and thats all! CIA/FBI/NSA are in it for real! How many journalists get in the biz expecting to be shot at and possibly killed? Very few. Most would rather sit on their ass and write some high-handed story about some perceived wrong and receive awards for essentially doing nothing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:41am

Sort of amusing to see a link in the story to the Guardian, which has been the biggest supporter and apologist for Assange. Not shocking to see them on the story, trying to spin it as hard as they can.

There won't be anything done to the journalists who parrot the other press, that is meaningless. Further, the individual was outed by Pakistan's own internal agency, which allowed the name to be placed on a civil lawsuit filed. It really isn't a reporter issue, it is a state outing.

Digging deeper tells more of the story, and once again shows that TD is off looking for ghosts and goblins rather than worrying about getting the story right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:51am

Re:
Actually, all you said was quite obvious from the article (except that last bit of drivel.)

These journalists got their information from an inside source. Wikileaks got their information from an inside source. A lawsuit published this one initially. US news outlets already had access and published parts of what is on Wikileaks. In this case, someone was put at risk and needed to be recalled. In the Wikileaks case... well, no one was put at risk. So it's not a perfect metaphor, but damn close.

So again, why aren't these journalists being attacked and demonized by the US government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:54am

Re:
How? The Guardian is one of the two most independent newspapers in the UK. I'd be more willing to trust that thna anything that shitheel Murdoch runs.

Moreover, this is the exact same thing that Assange is being condemned for. And there is little evidence that the US military have been actively harmed by the cables. Yes, Wikileaks has directly contributed to deaths (cf. Kenya corruption), but the cause is of openness, of transparency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:13am

Re:
but it's not nearly the same level of harm

True, the scope of the Wikileaks documents, as hum-drum and devoid of anything surprising as they may be, was far more embarrassing.

Lives, bah! We have face at stake here people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:13am

Re: Re: scale
What are you talking about? Did you miss this part "All these guys should be left alone"? I simply pointed out that there is a difference in scale between wikileaks and a couple of journalists in Pakistan. There is a difference in scale, I did not take sides, I did not say that one or the other should be prosecuted more or even at all. Work on your reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: F that ad at the top of the page
Seriously, F**K those ads that you have on this site that pop out every time I mouse over them. It took me no less than 7 attempts to read the top headline without that ad popping out. I know you are trying to make some money through ads, but I think you should limit the ads that just seriously piss off users.

Do you know which ad it was? We're not supposed to have ads on the site like that. And, yes, we do try to not allow ads that piss off users. If you let me know which one it was, I can make sure it's blocked. Very sorry about that. We really do try to not let in such ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am

Re:
Sort of amusing to see a link in the story to the Guardian, which has been the biggest supporter and apologist for Assange. Not shocking to see them on the story, trying to spin it as hard as they can.

This would be the same Guardian that actually broke the story of the details of the rape allegations against Assange that show that it's a lot more than "a broken condom" as people are saying?

Sorry, the Guardian is not at all supporting or apologizing for Assange. They're the only paper to show that he might actually be in serious trouble with these rape allegations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nelsoncruz (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 1:12pm

Valerie Plame
"why are we not seeing the same sort of claims about the Pakistani journalists who put this CIA boss in danger?"

Because it would almost certainly invoke memories of the Valerie Plame affair. Not even US officials (Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage) or journalists (Robert Novak) that revealed the name of a CIA agent get punished. So why should Pakistani citizens?

Of course this also raises questions about the calls for trial/imprisonment/death for Assange and the actual imprisonment and torture of his alleged source Bradley Manning. No one was ever charged or spent a single day in jail for outing Valerie Plame (Libby was charged and convicted of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury)! So apparently American politicians can leak whatever they want, while soldiers and foreign citizens cannot. Nice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MD2000, 20 Dec 2010 @ 2:16pm

Same as...
Same as the people who revealed Valerie Plame's identity...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pervez, 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:34pm

pakileaks
Why not out the Paki journos like they outed the CIA station chief? Their names are Ahmad Quraishi and Shireen Mazari... both on ISI payroll...
[ link to this | view in thread ]