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

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#71

Post by derefr »

rick888 wrote: post #58
mcantelon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…

"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison." That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging." Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when…

> That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Stop to think about what the scenario entails. If X occupies Y, the Xes kill the Ys in great number. Releasing information that kills Xes, and thus moves the occupation closer to an end, prevents the killing of more Ys. Every soldier kills some to prevent the death of many—it's all about the numbers.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#72

Post by rbanffy »

tptacek wrote: post #66
rbanffy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Nice strawman. Calling the folks who recklessly fire on civilians murderers may be a bit exaggerated. Human error happens and human error when the human is on the trigger of a 30 mm cannon is usually disastrous, but au…

People who recklessly fire on civilians are murderers and should be tried as such. Commanders who issue orders that make ignore forseeable events like that should be held criminally responsible. Corruption should be eliminated. Corrupt local replacements for the Taliban should be thwarted. Incompetancy is bad and should be rectified. Now, all those things being true, help me understand how it can be OK to arm the Tal…

When you know the identity of your informants was compromised, you should remove them from the field immediately. If you don't, it's at least 50% your fault when they get killed.

Keep in mind the US government knew what documents would be leaked before the Taleban could get access to them.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#73

Post by rick888 »

baddox wrote: post #32
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.

"What they're doing is precisely journalism."

Journalists have a responsibility. If a couple of people have leaked information, the likelihood of anybody actually seeing the information is close to zero. Wikileaks has a huge audience that now includes most major media outlets in the US. This is the difference.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#74

Post by randombit »

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?

While we've got a time machine handy: If he gave information about the location and plans of Vichy officials to the French resistance, would we say it was an act of espionage/treason/terrorism and/or murder?

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#75

Post by derefr »

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…

> Governments can't function without secrets -- even your local small town has to have secret meetings to discuss personnel issues and such.

That's just proof that governments can't function without immediate secrets. Nothing needs to stay a secret after its immediate usefulness has expired. As soon as you've fired the personnel you were having issues with, publish the minutes of the meeting where it was decided.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#76

Post by mcantelon »

rick888 wrote: post #58
mcantelon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…

"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison." That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging." Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when…

>That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed.

>Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here

If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things.

>This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

That makes two of us, evidently.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#77

Post by SkyMarshal »

gloob wrote: post #67

I find it bizarre that so many people suddenly care so much about the lives of a couple hundred civilians in Afghanistan. Between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, and nary a tear was shed by a reporter anywhere, but suddenly God knows how many people are out for this fellow's blood. The world's a funny place.

Informant > Civilian. To those people at least.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#78

Post by kemiller »

rbanffy wrote: post #53
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 --- e…

> 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. Nice strawman. Calling the folks who recklessly fire on civilians murderers may be a bit exaggerated. Human error happens and human error when the human is on the trigger of a 30 mm cannon is usually disastrous, but au…

I wonder which clean, efficient war we should compare it to.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#79

Post by tptacek »

rbanffy wrote: post #72
tptacek wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who recklessly fire on civilians are murderers and should be tried as such. Commanders who issue orders that make ignore forseeable events like that should be held criminally responsible. Corruption should be eliminated. Corrupt local replacements for the Taliban should be thwarted. Incompetancy is bad and should be rectified. Now, all those things being true, help me understand how it can be OK to arm the Tal…

When you know the identity of your informants was compromised, you should remove them from the field immediately. If you don't, it's at least 50% your fault when they get killed. Keep in mind the US government knew what documents would be leaked before the Taleban could get access to them.

OK. It's 50% the US's fault if people get killed. What's your point? Note well: people are likely to be killed who aren't actually informants. Death squads don't do due process.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#80

Post by gloob »

rick888 wrote: post #63
gloob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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?" Right, so like little children that aren't responsible, they released all of the names instead. "See above." see above

If the American government is indifferent to the fate of the informants (which refusing to work on removing the names of informants would suggest), then why should Wikileaks be held to a higher standard? At the very least, Wikileaks doesn't have any guns or military and is directly responsible for no deaths whatsoever, a fact which is rather less true of both the Taliban and the Americans.
Post reply on HN