Snorre Valen, a Norwegian lawmaker, nominated the WikiLeaks website for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.

“By disclosing information about corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes, WikiLeaks is a natural contender for the Nobel Peace Prize,” he explained. Website founder Julian Assange has been the focal point of worldwide media scrutiny since July. The site has released tens of thousands of secret documents and diplomatic cables, including the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs, which provide a blow-by-blow narrative of the conflicts.

Humanity needs organizations like WikiLeaks to inflame the apathetic masses into war revulsion and open dissent. Only through undistorted accounts of the wars can citizens begin to shape their views objectively. The insight provided by the War Logs augment the historical record that governments habitually manipulate. A progressive website, towardfreedom.com, said it best: “Without leaks we wouldn’t know that civilian casualties from the war in Iraq are much higher than advertised, or that U.S. troops initially went into battle without decent body armor.”

WikiLeaks cites judicial precedent to spell out its mission: “In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ‘only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.’ We agree.” Those who demand reasonable transparency in government and espouse responsible action hail WikiLeaks as a welcome arm of justice—as I certainly do.

However, Assange committed an unjustifiable act of irresponsibility by refusing to redact the names of Afghan informants in the Afghanistan logs, theoretically putting those individuals at the risk of Taliban retailation.

Assange then lied about the reason behind his refusal in an interview with NBC’s “The Today Show” days after the release.

“If there are those names there, and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military itself,” Assange said.

To the contrary, published accounts of negotiations with Assange from “The Guardian” and “The New York Times”—who were hand-picked by Assange to comb the leaked materials prior to release—claim Assange was “happy to allow the names of Afghan civilians to be posted on its website.”

A spokesperson for the Taliban told “The Daily Telegraph” in July, “We read everything and we will read these documents.” The insurgent group, notorious for beheading, hanging or shooting those identified as spies or accessories to foreign troops, have threatened to decapitate informants found in WikiLeaks’ cache of uncensored intelligence documents.

The Afghanistan logs, as the first wave of publicized leaks, earned condemnation from Washington.

“They [Assange and his source] might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Assange’s rebuttal, denouncing Washington for citing “hypothetical blood” while “the grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan are covered with real blood,” invited questions regarding his refusal to redact the names of the informants.

Despite the government’s insistence that the leaks endangered lives, Pentagon sources have confessed that no evidence supports the position yet. But by not censoring names and other identifying features of informants in the Afghanistan logs, WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrated reckless disregard for human life, which is glaringly out of step with Noble Peace Prize values.

Assange is spearheading a global initiative to hold governments accountable by forcing transparency upon them. But mishandling the sensitive material he presides over has dangerous consequences for many people. He, too, must be held accountable for every abuse of power, miscalculation and lie.