Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 211 posts

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#31

Post by OpieCunningham »

zaphar wrote: post #19
mquander wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, then propose another way. If there's a gate, there's a gatekeeper. There is no doubt in my mind that I would rather have Julian Assange and the Wikileaks staff be that gatekeeper than the U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct.

U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct. This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Which effectively puts them all the way on the other end of the spectrum. Your saying that putting 100's of peoples lives at risk in…

> Theres nothing wrong with pointing out that one way is just as bad as the status quo.

Neither way is perfect - but that's far different from your equivocation. "Hundreds of people" possibly identified through the Wikileaks release pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands collaterally killed by the U.S. military.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#32

Post by baddox »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…

Wikileaks publishes leaked information. They don't steal information. By the time information gets to Wikileaks, it's already been leaked. Wikileaks just tries to verify the information, determines the value in publishing it, tries to protect their sources and the people the leak might affect, then perhaps publishes the leaked information. What they're doing is precisely journalism.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#33

Post by peterwwillis »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…

it's not wikileaks' job to filter what gets leaked. that's the job of the leaker.

you have to understand, there's very little cause to leak classified documents. most people who have classified jobs would be retarded not to assume they could get caught. if they have some matireal which they object to, they weigh it against the possibility of manning's fate (which could be death, or just lots of torture). if it's worth the risk, they leak it.

this wild west of anarchy where every secret gets leaked will not exist. but important, controversial things (or whatever could sway the balance of power of any given government) that are worth the risk, will be leaked. for the first time in the history of the world the powerful are afraid of keeping secrets. and that's OK with me.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#34

Post by petercooper »

vincentpants wrote: post #16

Wikileaks is the only place in the world where you can be a whistleblower without the threat of censorship or persecution. Sounds like two of the best things to happen to democracy in a long time.

.. until you're suspected of being the whistleblower, of course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10529110

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#35

Post by cageface »

rick888 wrote: post #29
mcantelon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in chall…

If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

Godwin's law so soon in this thread? Not helpful.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#36

Post by tptacek »

mcantelon wrote: post #15
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

When you call those prosecuting the US/NATO side of the conflict in Afghanistan "murderers", you run the risk of implicitly taking the side of US/NATO's adversaries, who in this case are the Taliban.

Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? The Taliban aren't the Sandinistas. The Taliban aren't the North Vietnamese Army. They aren't even Hezbollah.

It is conceivable --- even directly observable --- that countries can survive and thrive led by any of those movements, however much we may disagree with their politics and practices and the mechanisms they used to take power. Say what you will about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but women can go to medical school in Iran and (presumably) Lebanon.

I've read a little bit about the history of Afghanistan leading up to the Taliban. I know it was a disaster, and I know the Taliban took root in part because they managed to impose some semblance of order over a country governed essentially by banditry. But as near as I can tell, the Taliban is objectively evil. Apart from consolidating the warlordism in Afghanistan, what possible virtue can there be to defending them?

Outing innocent informants and getting them killed --- which I know hasn't been reported to have happened yet --- is bad no matter where it happens. But I don't have much of a moral qualm about directly opposing, say, the Iraq war. But I don't understand how you can construct a worldview that permits you to cheer on something that assists Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who may be the closest thing the Earth has to an actual comic book supervillain.

There's a lot of secrecy and dissembling and corruption in the world. You have to choose your battles. Wikileaks chose a really crappy one this time.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#37

Post by baddox »

I laughed when the author cited a US law claiming the United States' ability (specifically the FBI) to legally violate international law. That's like me citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and burglarize any house I want to.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#38

Post by mr_eel »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…

1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally.

2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do.

3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothing to suggest Wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. Also you are incorrect when you suggest that they are opposed to all secrets. Assange himself has repeatedly said that there is often a legitimate need for secrecy.

It's not a question of the need for secrecy, it's a question of it's abuse.

4) This makes little sense to me; information doesn't need to be on a computer for it to be leaked. All it takes is one person with access and motivation.

"As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen."

What is the alternative then? As it stands, governments have little motivation to become more transparent; the opposite is true in my opinion.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#39

Post by gloob »

rick888 wrote: post #29
mcantelon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in chall…

Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

The story I've heard is that Wikileaks attempted to contact the White House, so the two parties could go through the documents and remove references to informants. The White House declined the offer. Has any evidence emerged to suggest this is untrue?

Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

See above.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#40

Post by patrickaljord »

Synthetase wrote: post #5

"The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents -- and its leadership brought to justice." The latter imperative might be achievable. The former is the height of delusion.

> The latter imperative might be achievable.

It might be, but so might putting a replacement online a couple of days later.

Post reply on HN