Hum, to correct some points: 1) the Guardian at least says no fee was involved:
"Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles."
2) I think also it's fairly clear the auction model was something they considered, tried and rejected (the auction failed), and 3) you didn't mention that the Wau Holland Foundation /will/ be producing a report as required by law.
And finally, concerning the extra documents not released, WL said it would only /delay/ the release, not block them altogether:
"We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits."
1) I agree that Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of any articles- Assange does not wield that much power- however, payment of some sort was involved. I cannot go into details on this as my sources would not allow it.
2) I do not work for Wikileaks, and I doubt you do. What they do behind closed doors is only up for public opinion. They have made it clear in the past that they are not beyond selling information. I am not so certain they are still not up for it.
3) I thought I had included that they were planning on releasing a summary in August. This is, however, the first one they have done since Wikileaks inception in 2006. Where are the last 3?
4) I am a huge fan of Mr. Assange. I do not like his politics, but I do respect him. For what ever reason you have decided to believe him. The word of someone who has told you their agenda. The word of a man who also deleted 30 mins from the 2007 helo attack. Now they delete facts from the War logs? What about the lying[1]? I can take but so much before I start to see something fishy. If your goal is transparency than you your self mush be 100% transparent, and Wikileaks is not.
"Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-...
2) I think also it's fairly clear the auction model was something they considered, tried and rejected (the auction failed), and 3) you didn't mention that the Wau Holland Foundation /will/ be producing a report as required by law.
And finally, concerning the extra documents not released, WL said it would only /delay/ the release, not block them altogether:
"We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits."
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/