I didn't say that Wikileaks is lying. I'm saying I don't know what the hell they're talking about because what they said could literally mean anything. And to provide no elaboration is just as bad as posting the question-headline, "Is the Government covering up Aaron Swartz's UFO abduction?"
Their 3 points seem fairly clear to me. I'd assume assistance would be some kind of technical help? Being in communication with Assange is also pretty clear, and the third point is necessarily vague.
Did you want to see the commits and email logs?
I think the point they're making is that if Wikileaks were aware of these (possible) facts then other actors could be too.
And before you say, "Well, the New York Times deserved it"...that's not what the argument is about. The argument is: will Wikileaks publish a lie if it believes that the ends justify the means? The answer is "yes". So until they show actual evidence in this case, I don't think they should be given the benefit of the doubt just because they're Wikileaks. I'm curious to what more harm could be done to Aaron besides, well, him already being dead, and also, the innuendo generated by Wikileaks' teaser tweets.
Yes, and that's all I'm saying. It sounds as if I'm being anti-Wikileaks here...but no, I'm being frustrated with what seems like an ambiguous, unhelpful statement by an organization that Aaron probably admired. I understand Wikileaks' skill for drama, but there's enough of that already: if they have something compelling, put enough out there to convince us.
