| Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small. |
吉拉德總理和美國國務(wù)卿希拉里·克林頓沒有對其他媒體機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行半個字的批評。這是因?yàn)椋缎l(wèi)報》、《紐約時報》和《明鏡周刊》資格老且勢力較強(qiáng)，而維基解密既年輕又弱小。 |
| We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings |
我們現(xiàn)在是被壓迫者。吉拉德政府試圖槍斃說出真相的人，因?yàn)樗幌Ｍ耐饨缓驼谓灰椎日嫦啾蝗私衣丁?/td>
|
| Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not. |
在我和其他維基解密員工遭遇無數(shù)公共暴力威脅的時候，澳大利亞政府的回應(yīng)在哪里？澳大利亞人或許會以為，總理應(yīng)該保護(hù)她的公民免受這些傷害，但政府給出的只有尚未證實(shí)的非法指控。澳大利亞總理和首席檢察官本應(yīng)獨(dú)立于事件本身，以有尊嚴(yán)的方式履行他們的職責(zé)。但他們不會，他們只想挽回自己的面子。 |
| Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it? |
每一次維基解密公布美國機(jī)構(gòu)濫用職權(quán)的真相，澳大利亞政客們都會追隨美國國務(wù)院的論調(diào)：“你會置眾多生命于安危！國家安全！你會威脅軍隊(duì)的安全！”然后，他們卻又說維基解密公布的內(nèi)容并不重要。問題是，這兩種說法不能同時成立。到底哪種說法才對呢？ |
| It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone. |
兩種說法都不對。維基解密已有4年的歷史，這段時間里，我們改變了整個政府的運(yùn)作方式，但正如所有人都知道的一樣，沒有一個人因此受到傷害。相反，在澳大利亞政府的默許之下，美國在過去的幾個月時間里就殺死了數(shù)千人。 |
| US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published. |
美國國防部部長羅伯特·蓋茨在一封寫給美國參議院的信中承認(rèn)，沒有任何敏感情報來源或途徑因維基解密公布的有關(guān)阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭的文件而中斷。美國國防部稱，沒有任何證據(jù)證明，維基解密的報道導(dǎo)致了任何人在阿富汗受到傷害。北約駐喀布爾人員向CNN表示，沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何一個需要保護(hù)的個人。澳大利亞國防部的表態(tài)如出一轍。沒有任何澳大利亞軍隊(duì)或情報人員因?yàn)槲覀児嫉牟牧隙艿絺Α?/td>
|
